Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of European fighter aircraft the Royal Air Force requires.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): It is too early in the project to forecast with certainty the eventual size of a United Kingdom purchase of European fighter aircraft. The work-sharing agreement for development is, however, based on the declared requirement for 250 aircraft.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister accept that unless the Government give a firm commitment to purchase 250 aircraft, the unit cost of each aircraft might make its eventual cost prohibitive to some of the nation? If the order is to go ahead, it requires a firm commitment from the Government to purchase 250 aircraft. Will the hon. Gentleman say when development work on the EFA is likely to start?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is difficult to give a firm order to purchase an aircraft until there is an aircraft design to purchase. Therefore, it is too early to give such a commitment. I hope that development work will start early next year.

Sir John Farr: Has my hon. Friend any long-term plan for when the aircraft will become operational, and will he say when it will go into service with the RAF?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the aircraft will enter service in the mid-1990s.

Trident

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current and projected number of people employed on the Trident project.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): We estimate that, in the financial year 1987–88, 12,000 direct and 10,000 indirect United Kingdom jobs are being sustained by the Trident programme. The number of jobs will rise to a peak of 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect over the next few years.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those statistics confirm that the Trident programme is a first-class investment for creating jobs and safeguarding the defence of our country? Furthermore, does he agree

with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that it is high time that the Labour party changed its defence policy?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that the defence policy, such as it is, of the Labour party is looking particularly unconvincing at the moment. My hon. Friend is correct that Trident is a good investment. No amount of investment in conventional weapons would come remotely near to providing the security and defence that the Trident programme will offer us.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the possible implications for the Trident programme of the INF agreement and further deliberations on strategic arms reductions? Will he comment on an article in The Daily Telegraph today, which says that the agreement between ourselves and the United States is of a commercial nature, not intergovernmental, and that, therefore, the security of that arrangement is not good in view of the United States' intention to reduce strategic arms?

Mr. Younger: With regard to today's events, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that last year Mr. Gorbachev said publicly:
We decided today to withdraw completely the question of French and British missiles and let them remain as an independent force, let them increase and be further improved.
Thus, that is not in question in today's decision.
As to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have been given perfectly full assurances by the United States Administration that they will fulfil in full the requirements that we have asked of them on the Trident system.

Mr. Sackville: I thank my right hon. Friend for speaking to my constituents after he visited Barrow last week. Will he confirm that the Trident project is providing jobs for many subcontractors around the area, and that it is vital to the economy of the north-west?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There is no doubt that the progress that has been made on HMS Vanguard and HMS Victorious at the shipyard in Barrow is extremely good. It is a good job and I have no doubt that it is providing a lot of jobs in the area.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not a fact that if the Americans and Russians agree, as is quite likely, to a 50 per cent. across-the-board cut in each other's strategic systems, it will mean that the United State's navy will have 12 Trident submarines? If the Government go ahead with their purchase from the United States, the Royal Navy will have four Trident submarines. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, with the Royal Navy having the equivalent of almost one third of the American submarine strategic force, the Americans, let alone the Russians, will allow that position to continue?

Mr. Younger: There are a lot of ifs in that question. The fact remains that the American Administration and the contractors in America have given the firmest assurance that their contractual obligation to us under the Trident programme will be fulfilled, whatever the circumstances.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will welcome whatever agreements are reached between the Soviet Union and the United States? Even if they agree to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic weapons systems,the fact is that many of the American weapons systems are


land-based. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) chose to ignore that. Even if the United Kingdom possessed four nuclear submarines and the United States had 12, the balance would be more than made up by the American land-based systems.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The agreement refers to land-based systems, not to submarine-launched systems. There is also the great assurance that I have quoted from Mr. Gorbachev, who said that the British system was in no way involved in the discussions.

Royal Ordnance

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for competitive procurement for his Department arising out of the reorganisation of Royal Ordnance plc.

Mr. Sainsbury: Decisions on the internal reorganisation of Royal Ordnance plc are a matter for the company. We do not expect the company's recent announcements to have any effect on the procurement decisions of the Ministry of Defence and we will continue to pursue our policy of maximising competition at both main and subcontract level.

Mr. McWilliam: Following the reorganisation of Royal Ordnance plc, is the Minister entitled to expect some improvement in the level of tender submitted by the company, given the National Audit Office figure of a £37 million discount to British Aerospace on the disposal of Royal Ordnance plc?

Mr. Sainsbury: The price that the Government obtained for the disposal of Royal Ordnance plc was a good one. It was a competitive purchase. The value of assets is clearly what the purchaser will pay for.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I support competitive procurement, but will my hon. Friend note the importance of that major employer to the city of Nottingham? Will he also welcome the custom and practice of the present management in keeping not only staff fully informed of what is going on but, happily, also local Members of Parliament?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am well aware of the importance of Royal Ordnance plc to Nottingham, and I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that the continuing improvements in efficiency by the company will provide it with wider opportunities to develop its market, including its export market.

Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the conclusion in the report of the National Audit Office that the Royal Ordnance factories were substantially undersold because of the rush to privatisation, will the Minister comment on the fact that British Aerospace stands to make up to £100 million on the sale of the factory in Enfield alone?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question that the Royal Ordnance factories were undersold. As I said earlier, it was a competitive purchase, and a good price was paid.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On 2 April this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that negotiations were under way with Royal Ordnance for the exclusive supply on long-term contracts of propellants, explosives and some ammunition. As other British companies are

capable of supplying some of those products, does that covert deal not drive a coach and horses through the policy of competitive tendering?

Mr. Sainsbury: Last year, in the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to arrangements for long-term contracts for the supply of propellants, explosives and ammunition. We are aware of the interest of other British companies in the supply of such products, we are in touch with at least one other company, and we are awaiting proposals, which will certainly be carefully examined.

North Atlantic (Naval Strategy)

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning Royal Navy strategy in the north Atlantic.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): The Royal Navy's strategy in the north Atlantic was described in the 1987 Statement on the Defence Estimates, at paragraphs 404 and 405, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Michie: Will not the Royal Navy's strategy be subsumed by the interests of the United States because of the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles? Is it not a fact that even the Navy's rules of engagement are being changed to suit the interests of the United States rather than British interests? Will the Minister come clean about this?

Mr. Stewart: The strategy of the Royal Navy is part of the strategy of the navies of NATO, and the rules of engagement, like all other aspects, are resolved within NATO by agreement between all its members.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Navy's strategic options have broadened somewhat since 1979 in view of three facts: in 1979 we had not a single carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft—[interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Brazier: I was asking my hon. Friend whether our strategic options had broadened since 1979, as then we had no carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft, only one frigate in the Royal Navy with a hard kill anti-missile system and no credible modern torpedo suitable for modern warfare on any of our submarines.

Mr. Stewart: It is our policy to keep the Royal Navy up to date. Indeed, that is why we have been introducing so many new ships. Since the Government came to power in 1979 we have ordered 60 major ships for the Royal Navy, about half of which have still to enter service. Ten of the ships still on order are frigates, and the value of the investment represented by ships still on order is £4 billion.

Mr. Duffy: The Minister said nothing about the need for modern and adequate mine-counter measures, which seems incredible in view of fairly recent developments. Can he assure the House that these will be available by the early 1990s, given the present very unsatisfactory state of the modernisation programme?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of mine-counter measure vessels, as do the Government. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a programme of introducing Hunter class


and single role mine hunters, and the success of our vessels in the Gulf has shown how very good their equipment and manpower are.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister outline the attitude of the other northern members of the Alliance who are participating in the review of combined maritime policies and tell the House whether they support Britain's attitude of slavish acceptance of United States maritime strategy in northern waters?

Mr. Stewart: The whole maritime strategy of all partners in NATO in the NATO context is defensive.

Stockholm Document

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the application of the inspection arrangements agreed under the Stockholm document.

Mr. Younger: Yes. The Stockholm document is concerned with confidence-building in Europe through greater transparency in military activities. The provision for verification of compliance, through on-site inspection by participating states, is a significant way of achieving greater trust and confidence on all sides.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he yet considered any challenge inspections or even observation inspections of Soviet military exercises? Does he consider that any of the forthcoming exercises are suitable for a challenge?

Mr. Younger: Yes, we have indeed considered challenge inspections. Looking to next year, we have an indication of notifiable exercises. The figures available to date indicate that there will be seven observable exercises in the Warsaw pact countries — three in the German Democratic Republic, two in Czechoslavakia, one in Hungary and one in the USSR. On our side, there will be nine suitable exercises in NATO countries—seven in the Federal Republic of Germany, one in Denmark and one in Norway—and two in Switzerland.

Ms. Ruddock: Given that we accept that confidence-building is so important, is the Secretary of State aware that last Thursday nuclear warheads were brought into the cruise missile base at RAF Molesworth, that last night that base was put on black alert—which I understand is the highest state of alert—and that, because of the presence of police, we must assume that a convoy run was being planned? Does he really think that that is in the spirit of detente surrounding the signing of the INF treaty today? Will he guarantee that no further exercises of that kind will take place in this country and that, following the INF agreement, to which we look forward, there will be no increase in American-owned nuclear weapons coming into Britain?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Lady's question, but I can neither confirm nor deny any of the facts that she has suggested; and, with great respect to her, they bear no relation whatever to the question.

Mr. Conway: Is it acceptable to my right hon. Friend that any inspection teams representing Warsaw pact forces should he comprised of members who have formerly been banned from Britain for alleged acts incompatible with their diplomatic status?

Mr. Younger: I understand that any personnel who have been declared persona non grata would not be acceptable on inspection teams.

INF Agreement

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will directly discuss with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ways of reducing minimum nuclear forces following the signing of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement.

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will directly discuss with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ways of reducing minimum nuclear forces following the signing of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement.

Mr. Younger: There are regular exchanges between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union on nuclear arms control issues.

Ms. Primarolo: Why cannot Britain enter into bilateral talks with the Soviet Union on nuclear disarmament? Is it the Prime Minister who is blocking the progress of negotiations with the Soviet Union on nuclear disarmament agreements?

Mr. Younger: We do, as I have said, have discussions with the Soviet Union about arms control matters, but negotiations have been through the superpowers. I may add that if the hon. Lady's views, as expressed in the motion to which she put her name recently, were to be carried out, Britain would have no nuclear weapons and so would have no role in discussing and influencing the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the INF agreement and to confirm that it would never have come about if the Opposition's policies had been pursued?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If I had taken the Opposition's advice, and, indeed, that of CND, there would be no cruise missiles in Britain or Western Europe today and there would be a huge battery of them lined up pointing in our direction from the other side.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State have any cause to fear that although the Soviet Union may abide by the letter of the treaty, it may seek to undermine it by further nuclear deployment? Will that fear be more or less likely to be fulfilled if NATO goes about making compensatory adjustments and arrangements?

Mr. Younger: Of course, there is concern in some quarters as to whether both sides will keep the agreement. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that NATO—and I believe the Soviet Union, too—is determined to keep to the spirit and the letter of the agreement. NATO has no intention to substitute for the weapons that have been removed.

Mr. Mates: I am sure that all will agree that today's agreement is historic in every way, but can my right hon. Friend yet tell us the implications of the agreement for the deployment of cruise missiles in Britain?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The agreement about to be signed in Washington is fully supported by the British


Government and it has been warmly endorsed by all the United States' allies. Once the INF treaty has been ratified and comes into force, missile withdrawals will start and will be phased over a three-year period. Meanwhile, the normal training pattern will continue. During that time, six operational flights of ground-launched cruise missiles will be withdrawn from RAF Greenham Common and one operational flight from RAF Molesworth. I expect that the Molesworth missiles will be among the first weapons on the NATO side to be withdrawn.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State now confirm that, as stated in The Daily Telegraph editorial today, there is no formal agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States on the supply of Trident missiles? If a future American President, as part of STAR talks, were not to supply those missiles, the British Government would have no redress.

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman at all. We have had the clearest possible assurances from the United States Administration that they regard themselves as committed to provide what they have undertaken to provide for our Trident programme. That is the end of the matter.

World Peace Council

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received representations about the implications for his policy on arms control of the policies propounded by the World Peace Council, a copy of which has been forwarded to him.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The so-called World Peace Council opposes the concept of the nuclear deterrent, which is an essential foundation of our defence policy. Opposition Members and their supporters lose no opportunity of supporting its approach.

Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend take a shovelful of Siberian salt to the examination of the so-called Auckland declaration, issued by the World Peace Council, which is, of course, Soviet-backed, although four Opposition Members are members of the British arm? Is it any surprise to my hon. Friend that the declaration does not contain any condemnation of the occupation of Afghanistan? Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had followed the policy of not deploying cruise and Pershing missiles into Europe in the first place we should not be having today's INF agreement?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend does well to remind the House of the sorts of policies that are espoused by the World Peace Council. It is not surprising that it has not condemned the occupation of Afghanistan, because it supported the suppression of the Hungarians, the installation of missiles in Cuba and the invasion of Hungary.
It is clear that there would not be an INF agreement today if the policy of one-sided disarmament, espoused by the Labour party, had been followed, because there would not have been anything about which to have an agreement.

Mr. Heffer: I have never at any time supported the World Peace Council. Nevertheless, is it not clear that the objectives of such a body are in line with the thinking of all sane people in the world—the removal of nuclear weapons from every country? Is it not clear that the people

of this country, and, indeed, the world, see the INF agreement as only a first step? Is it not also clear that all of us must continue to work hard to get rid of nuclear weapons, beginning with this country, in line with Labour party policy?

Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his non-membership of the World Peace Council. The council's policy of objecting to the nuclear deterrent goes against the interests of this country and of NATO, and should be rejected firmly by all hon. Members.

Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that nuclear force reductions leave us increasingly vulnerable to imbalances in biological, chemical and conventional forces, especially when the Soviet Union is moving from labour-intensive to capital-intensive forces? Does he also accept that reductions must be achieved on an integrated basis and that, unless we achieve that in our agreements, we should be prepared to pay more for our defence?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important factor. Although, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the INF agreement may be only the first step, it is essential that before long we should tackle the major issue of the imbalance in conventional forces and the threat of chemical warfare, which is so strong from the other side.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister sneers at those who do not believe in and want to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, is he sneering at the 121 nations that have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If any of the 121 nations that have renounced nuclear weapons, decide to obtain them because they believe that the Government are right and they want such weapons what will he say to them?

Mr. Stewart: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not sneer at anybody. I am merely pointing out that the nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our defence and that of our allies in NATO, and I suspect that it will long remain so.

Falkland Islands (Telephone Calls)

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of telephone calls to and from service personnel in the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): The cost of telephone calls from the United Kingdom for a British Telecom call is £2·30 per minute to the Falkland Islands for an operator-connected call, and £1·42 per minute to Ascension Island for a direct dialled call. The cost of calls back to the United Kingdom from both places is £1·50 per minute for a Cable and Wireless Plc direct dialled call.

Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although our forces on the Falkland Islands and on Ascension Island are well-led, well-paid and all the other good things, communications are bad? One may telephone the United States for 81p a minute and Australia for £1·02 a minute, but our forces have to pay £1·50 a minute during the day, night, weekends and so on. Will he seek some form of concession so that our various forces at least pay a reasonable charge for communicating with their families?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the rate is commercial and obviously has to be fixed by the


company. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that over Christmas and the new year there will be a discount of one third on calls back to the United Kingdom. I shall be glad to draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Defence of the Falklands is clearly reliant on royal fleet auxiliaries. Is it the Government's intention to procure AOR2 before Christmas?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on that matter.

INF Agreement

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what enhancement measures Her Majesty's Government are considering in the wake of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement.

Mr. Younger: The composition and balance of NATO's nuclear forces is being updated continuously. We have to ensure that their credibility and effectiveness are maintained in the light of changing circumstances. As part of that process NATO is currently considering what adjustments, if any, might be required to its remaining forces following the elimination of ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing missiles. There are a number of possible options, but no decisions have yet been taken.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister supply a full list of the new measures by which he plans to increase the number of nuclear weapons? Will he also give an opportunity for the House to debate such matters, instead of carrying on such things in secret?

Mr. Younger: No proposals have yet been placed before NATO allies. Obviously, we shall have to discuss such proposals with our allies when they are put up. I have given the general background against which we shall consider them. I should have thought that the hon. Lady might have found a little time in her supplementary question today of all days to congratulate the Government on the success of their policy for reducing nuclear weapons, as the treaty will be sealed today.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend also take into account the Soviet Union's intentions to modernise its nuclear forces and, at some suitable time, publish a list of such projects?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Soviet Union, as long as it thinks it must have such weapons, wisely keeps them updated all the time. We carefully watch what it is doing. Some useful publications have been produced. I understand that the American Administration will soon produce another publication.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I warmly welcome the development of the INF agreement. Will the Secretary of State advise whether he is looking at the option of replacing land-launched missiles with sea-launched cruise missiles, which will probably be based on the Clyde? Does he accept that, given the history of Polaris and Poseidon and the advent of Trident, that would be an unacceptable burden for the people of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with any of the points that the hon. Lady has raised. It is no part of my intention to substitute the missiles that we hope will be removed as a

result of the deal. At all times we shall have to look at the armoury of weapons that are available to us for our defence and make sure that they make sense, one with the other, and enable us to keep up a credible, flexible deterrent force. We shall have to look at that matter once the deal is concluded.

Mr. Leigh: The figures that have been issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies—I use the figures precisely because in the past they have been quoted approvingly by the Labour party—show an imbalance in favour of the Soviet Union of 2:1 in tanks and tactical aircraft and 3:1 in artillery. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we shall not entertain any reduction in battlefield nuclear weapons unless there is real and verifiable progress on the part of the Soviet Union towards a balance of conventional arms in the north European plain?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite correct, and I can give him that assurance. It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other colleagues on many occasions that before we would be prepared to go further into the reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons we would have to be convinced that there had been major changes in the conventional imbalance and, one hopes, that a worldwide ban on chemical and biological weapons had been concluded. We have none of such weapons, but the Soviet Union insists on keeping a large and increasing arsenal of them.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is great scope for the German suggestion from Chancellor Kohl that there should be simultaneous talks about the reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons and conventional weapons? That is the way in which we should go forward after the INF treaty, which we all welcome, is signed this afternoon.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the INF treaty. I hope that he will reflect on the reason why it has been possible to conclude it.

Mr. O'Neill: It had nothing to do with you.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary position that it had nothing to do with us. I presume that he is referring to the Labour party, because it certainly had nothing to do with it.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's question, I can confirm that the British Government's position has been made clear. We could not contemplate further discussions about battlefield nuclear weapons until we were satisfied that the conventional and chemical imbalance had been dealt with.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd to hear Opposition Members talking about the enhancement of weapons systems when, before the INF agreement that we are discussing today, they consistently advocated the unilateral weakening of our defences? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had followed their advice, and that of their friends, CND, we would not have made these major steps forward?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. If we had followed the advice of the Labour party we would not have had a deal today, and we would have had a whole range of nuclear weapons facing us to which we would have had no answer and which we would have had no prospect of negotiating away.

Exercise Purple Warrior

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of Exercise Purple Warrior.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The estimated costs of Exercise Purple Warrior, additional to those which would have been incurred had the exercise not been taking place, are £7·5 million.

Mr. Nellist: Leaving aside the dubious nature of an exercise that had nothing to do with defence and everything to do with plans for an invasion, presumably of a Third world country, and the fact that the Government had to hire merchant shipping vessels from Denmark and West Germany because of a savage reduction in the British merchant fleet, did the Minister consult his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security to discover whether that £7·5 million, properly spent on London and midlands hospitals, such as the Birmingham Children's hospital, might have resulted in fewer deaths in recent weeks because of the non-cancellation of heart operations?

Mr. Stewart: By prudent financial management the Government have been able to increase public expenditure on both the Health Service and defence.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point that bore some relation to the original question—about the vessels hired for the exercise—I am glad in one way that British operators and their vessels were so busy that they had things to do other than take part in the exercise. As far as vessels being hired for the exercise are concerned, we pursue our policy of obtaining them on the best terms of availability, suitability and cost, and if British vessels were competitive, we should be glad to have them.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend confirm that most of us take the view that the exercise represented money well spent? It was particularly good to have observers from behind the Iron Curtain there who could observe how effective our ability to respond to a potential attack would be, and could therefore subscribe to our deterrent posture.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The exercise was extremely successful in the rehearsal of amphibious landings and evacuation for an out-of-area operation, and in co-operation between the three services, which all took part. The arrangements for Warsaw pact observers were successfully and competently handled, and the inspection and observation of exercises of that sort play an important part in increasing confidence and reducing tension.

INF Agreement

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what arms control and disarmament negotiations he expects directly to contribute following the intermediate nuclear forces agreement.

Mr. Younger: INF negotiations have been conducted between the Soviet Union and the United States in close consultation with the NATO Alliance. The United Kingdom participates directly in a number of arms control fora, including the work of the conference on disarmament, which includes negotiation of a global ban on chemical weapons; the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly; mutual and balanced force

reductions negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw pact in Vienna; and the conference on security and confidence-building in Europe, under which discussions are continuing on a mandate for negotiations on confidence and security-building measures and conventional stability.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer. Since the Prime Minister spent yesterday trying to cash in on the success of the INF talks—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a hearing.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, since the Prime Minister spent most of yesterday trying to cash in on the success of the INF talks, will the Secretary of State for Defence now tell us that the Government are prepared to negotiate the removal of all nuclear weapons and that they are prepared to play a positive role in the disarmament negotiations rather than spend all their time and energy attacking the CND, which has done more to bring about the INF treaty—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The more noise, the more time that is wasted.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was concluding, will the Secretary of State also spend less time on anti-Soviet rhetoric and instead come to a serious discussion about the need to eliminate all nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: The object of all arms control reduction talks is to eliminate war and to bring peace by every means possible. The Government can now show remarkable progress towards those things. The hon. Gentleman is remarkably courageous in suggesting that the CND has any credit at all in this matter. If its advice had been followed we would have had no agreement and a much more threatening situation to face in future. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has every reason to be proud of the part that she has played in bringing about the reduction in nuclear weapons, which is greater than any previous reduction achieved under any Administration.

Mr. Forman: Is it not clear that the successful policy followed by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with our NATO allies and pursued on the basis of the twin-track decision since 1979 has brought the desired results? Is it not also clear that the Government will have a valuable role to play in future in negotiating a verifiable, workable agreement to reduce the threat of chemical weapons?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. It is the twin-track decision that has brought about the agreement which we hope will be signed today in Washington. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Opposition opposed that decision root and branch and voted against it in the House.

Contract Costs

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of contracts are awarded on a cost-plus basis.

Mr. Sainsbury: In 1986–87 about 6 per cent. by value of contracts were placed on the basis of cost-plus percentage fee for profit. The proportion has declined


from 22 per cent. in 1980–81 and reflects the aim of introducing cost incentives into defence non-competitive contracts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proportion of Marconi's cost-plus contracts are the subject of the fraud inquiries by the MOD police? May I have an assurance that MOD police will not be restrained in any way or restricted in carrying out those inquiries? I can tell the Minister that I am handing the documents about fraud at Marconi that the MOD police also have in their possession to Sir Gordon Downey, the Comptroller and Auditor General, so that the Public Accounts Committee, too, can examine every area that the Ministry of Defence police are examining.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from earlier replies on this subject that in this matter the Ministry of Defence police are under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am glad to hear that if the hon. Gentleman has any documents that he thinks are relevant to these sensitive matters he will pass them not only to the Public Accounts Committee but to the investigating authorities.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry of Defence policy of changing from cost-plus contracts to tendering has not only saved the Minister of Defence a great deal of money, but that that money has been used to buy other much needed conventional weapons?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to be able to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The introduction of a greater degree of competition into Ministry of Defence contracts is not only saving the taxpayer money, but is giving the services more equipment for the same amount of money.

NATO (Ministerial Meeting)

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his last meeting with NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Younger: I met my NATO colleagues collectively at the regular meetings of the Eurogroup and defence planning committee last week. Copies of the communiques issued after the meetings have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he and NATO are putting forward to increase the pace of arms reduction and to get new arms agreements with the Soviet Union, or has he been spending most of his time, on behalf of the Prime Minister, trying to get more nuclear weapons into this country?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We have given, and are giving, the fullest support to our allies the United States in further negotiations, which we hope will take place speedily, for up to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic missile systems. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might he prepared to support that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Polish Foreign Minister.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when her Government propose to abandon their vendetta against the BBC?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any vendetta against the BBC. The injunction is a matter that will shortly come before the courts again and, therefore, I can say nothing about it.

Mr. Heseltine: If, after her return from the Palace tonight, my right hon. Friend hears that an INF agreement has been signed in Washington, will she convey her congratulations to the American and Russian leaders? Will she also accept on behalf of all Conservative Members congratulations for what she and the Government have done in achieving this unique agreement and will she—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.

Mr. Heseltine: —continue to remind the British public that if we had listened to the policies of the official Opposition there would have been no agreement, because they would have denied us the nuclear strength from which to negotiate it?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I assume that the intermediate nuclear treaty will be signed today and I shall gladly convey the congratulations of my right hon. and hon. Friends — and, I hope, those on the Opposition side of the House — to the President and the General Secretary on the signing of that treaty, which is a historic event and is good news for us all. I shall also do my best to remind people that, but for the firmness of this country and NATO, that agreement would never have been signed, the SS20s would still have been up and we would have had no means of persuading —[Interruption.]—the Soviet Union to take them down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to ask brief questions and to listen to the answers in silence.

Mr. Kinnock: I welcome the meeting that the Prime Minister had with General Secretary Gorbachev yesterday and concur with her view that the Washington summit is an occasion, as she put it, to plan the way forward to more arms reductions. Will the Prime Minister tell us what contribution her Government will make to that way forward?

The Prime Minister: We have already made a considerable direct contribution with regard to cruise missiles, having been the first to station the cruise missiles and, therefore, have had a great deal to do in bringing about that treaty. Secondly, we have made it clear several times that we are for a 50 per cent. reduction of Soviet and United States missiles. Thirdly, we have been very active in regard to chemical weapons, particularly in trying to find a method of verification. Fourthly, we have made it clear that there should be no further reductions of nuclear weapons in Europe until we are far nearer parity on conventional weapons, and chemical weapons have been


eliminated. Fifthly, we have made the way clear about the anti-ballistic missile treaty and its relevance to SDI, and quite a number of other things besides.

Mr. Kinnock: In addition to various other steps, many of which are welcome, and some of which can be claimed with some justification, and in order to promote that way forward, may I ask the Prime Minister to drop any proposal to replace the intermediate land-based missiles, which will be removed as a consequence of the INF agreement, with sea or airborne intermediate missiles, either by innovation or by some so-called process of modernisation, as that act of replacement would clearly nullify the INF agreement that she so rightly celebrates?

The Prime Minister: The intermediate nuclear weapons treaty is for land-based missiles. With regard to all our other defences, we have a positive duty to see that they are modernised and effective. That is in accordance with the NATO Defence Minister's meeting held in California.

Mr. Kinnock: If that is essential, why should it involve the installation of intermediate nuclear missiles for delivery by sea or by air? Will the Prime Minister tell us why she should inaugurate a new generation of intermediate missiles, especially when she knows that the Soviet Union would respond in kind?

The Prime Minister: All weaponry has to be modernised so that it is effective against the defences that it might meet. That is a very simple reply, even though the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand it.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is very good to see the Leader of the Opposition, unlike many of his colleagues, expressing his congratulations to Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev and paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for her important part in the negotiations? Does she agree that NATO's next priority must be the destruction of Russia's chemical armoury and the verifiable reduction of the Warsaw pact's conventional forces? That is the first step that we must look to make now.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have made it clear on many occasions that the next steps forward must be towards conventional parity, because the Soviet Union has far superior conventional forces to ours and we must try to negotiate those down. It also has a massive superiority in highly dangerous chemical weapons, not only in numbers, but they are all modernised and there are increasing stockpiles. That is the most difficult treaty of all to negotiate, because it is undoubtedly very difficult to verify that no chemical weapons are being produced, particularly when they can be produced in quite different factories in the new binary system, which is the common mode.

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 December 1987.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the Prime Minister will be as positive in her reply to me as she was in her replies earlier in Question Time. I asked the Prime Minister a question on 17 November about the National Health Service. I make no excuse for repeating it again. In addition, we have had a report from the Royal College of Surgeons, which

includes the Queen's doctor. Will the Prime Minister reply to that positively and tell us what she intends to do? Everyone in the Health Service, doctors, nurses, surgeons and everyone else is complaining and wants the Government to do something positive. Why will the Prime Minister not do something positive now?

The Prime Minister: I think that the question that the hon. Gentleman asked was about restructuring pay for nurses. I think that he got the wrong end of the stick. He thought that it was a cut in nurses' pay. The restructuring arrangements are still being negotiated. We hope that the negotiations between the management side and the nurses will be completed this afternoon. In that case, the matter will be referred to the review body. I want to stress that the National Health Service has gone from strength to strength in the number of patients treated—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have a chance to answer.

The Prime Minister: As for the number of patients treated, 5·5 million in-patients were treated in 1978, whereas in 1986, 6·5 million in-patients were treated. There were 34 million out-patient attendances in 1978. There are now 38 million. The number of operations, about which hon. Members often ask me, was 2,015,000 in 1978; it is now 2,360,000—nearly 1,000 extra operations every day. The National Health Service has increased in strength and doctors and nurses are doing more with the increased money.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note the support that she has received for her line on budget discipline during the Copenhagen summit? Will she confirm that she has wider support among the Commission and other member countries? Does she believe that, by the spring summit, France and Germany will have fallen into line with the long-term interests of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: I hope to make a brief statement on the European Council. I confirm what my hon. Friend said, that the Commission's proposal on agricultural stabilizers—a way of keeping down the surpluses—came very much towards our view. They were strict, and there were attempts during the summit to undermine them, which we resisted.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cohen: It was important for the Prime Minister to be hostess to Mr. Gorbachev on his way to signing the historic INF agreement, but that did not include a single British-owned nuclear weapon. Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to put those on the negotiating table for arms reduction, or did she restrict herself to being President Reagan's tea lady?

The Prime Minister: No. That agreement includes several flights of weapons stationed at Greenham Common and one at Molesworth, which of course will be withdrawn. Without them there would never have been an agreement on the part of the Soviet Union to take down an infinitely larger number of intermediate weapons than NATO yet has. With regard to the nuclear deterrent,


Conservative Members believe that it is vital to our security to keep a British independent nuclear deterrent, and so do the British people.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: No matter how strongly we hold views on abortion, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those who try through violence, intimidation and abuse to silence those who seek a reduction in the time limit in which an abortion can be obtained?

The Prime Minister: I know that there are very strong views on this matter on both sides of the House. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital that whatever those views they should be able to be freely expressed and we should be able to discuss and debate the matter in the same way.

Mr. Maclennan: While I welcome the Prime Minister's timely reminder—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maclennan: —of the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is the leader of his party and he has a right to be heard like everyone else.

Mr. Maclennan: —imbalance in conventional weapons in the context of INF and the possible need to modernise the nuclear component of our land, sea and air-based weapons, may I ask whether she considers that discussion on conventional disarmament could not be accompanied by discussions on battlefield weapons in the Vienna talks?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is best to keep the discussions on battlefield weapons separate, but we are

very ready to take part, as we have done so far, further in the Vienna talks, with a view to trying to get the Russian superiority in conventional weapons much closer to the weapons the West possesses. It is absolutely vital to do that. One great advantage of the intermediate nuclear weapons treaty is that it shows that by strict negotiation, where the Soviet Union has more weapons than we have, we can get down that superior number of weapons, in the case of intermediate ones to zero, and in the case of conventional weapons to something much more like parity.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very widespread support for the Rates Reform Bill as a sensible way of reforming rates? In looking at some of the options that have been tabled, has she considered the banded community charge, and does she agree with me that it is nothing more than another form of local income tax, with all the disadvantages that would follow and it offers no accountability?

The Prime Minister: I believe that a banded community charge would just be income tax by another name. It would be yet another burden on income tax payers and would fall particularly heavily on people such as nurses, teachers and policemen. It would he immensely complicated, with marginal relief of all kinds. Income tax is paid and registered where people work, not where they live, so it would mean revealing a very great deal to the local authority, which many people would not like at all.

European Council (Copenhagen)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council held in Copenhagen on 4 and 5 December, which I attended, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
At the previous European Council in June, we had decided that
the Community must submit the use of its resources to effective and binding discipline
and adopt regulations
to keep the level of expenditure within the budget framework.
Our principal task this time was to consider practical measures to give effect to these objectives.
Our discussions concentrated on three main aspects: first, the amount of spending and its control, with particular reference to agricultural spending; secondly, the level and objectives of the Community's regional, social and agricultural guidance funds; and thirdly, how the Community should be financed in the years ahead.
The first aspect is control of spending. I made clear to the House before Copenhagen our determination to see the Community's agricultural spending brought under proper control, together with measures to dispose of existing agricultural surpluses and prevent the build-up of new ones. I also made it clear that the most effective way to achieve our aim was by the introduction of agricultural stabilisers for each and every commodity.
We were able to go far in Copenhagen towards establishing the basis for stabilisers, which will impose automatic cuts in price support if agreed production levels are exceeded. All member states now accept that such stabilisers are needed. We made progress in particular towards agreeing tough stabilisers for cereals, oil-seeds and protein crops, on which spending has increased particularly sharply.
We also had before us a proposal, but only in very general terms, for a Communitywide set-aside scheme, which a number of Governments, including ourselves, support as a complementary measure to stabilisers. I am glad to say that the Commission's proposal for an oils and fats tax, which we had resisted strongly at the June European Council, was not further pursued.
On the second aspect, structural funds, the Commission had proposed a doubling of the resources devoted to those funds by 1992. In common with several other Heads of Government, I made it clear that this was out of the question. Our view is that growth of those funds must be contained within a strict framework of budgetary discipline, but that it would be right to concentrate a higher proportion of them on the less prosperous member states, particularly Spain and Portugal.
The third aspect was how the Community should be financed. We discussed proposals put forward by the Commission for restructuring member states' contributions to the Community budget in order to make the arrangements more fairly reflect national prosperity. Decisions on the future level of the Community's own resources will be taken only when improved budget discipline arrangements have been worked out in detail. I made it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to see any dilution of our Fontainebleau abatement.
Much credit is due to the fair, indeed courageous, chairmanship of the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Schluter, for the progress which we made. None the less, the large number of issues to be settled, and the amount of detail involved, meant that we were unable to finish our work at this meeting, the more so because each Government naturally want to be able to judge the results as a whole.
The Council therefore adjourned and will resume its discussion under German chairmanship in Brussels on 11 and 12 February, building on the work done at the Copenhagen meeting. On foreign policy questions, we issued statements on East-West relations, Afghanistan and the middle east. Texts are in the Library of the House. We recognised the importance of the meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev and of the INF agreement which will be signed at it.
We urged the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan by a set date in 1988, and to agree to the establishment of an independent, transitional Government there. We also called for action to enforce implementation of Security Council resolution 598 on the Iran-Iraq conflict by means of a follow-up resolution.
Heads of Government also discussed the world financial situation. We welcomed the agreement between the Administration and Congress to reduce the United States budget deficit. We confirmed our commitment to run our economies soundly, keeping down inflation and encouraging enterprise. We stressed the importance of taking the necessary steps to have a Europe free from trade barriers by 1992.
In conclusion, the Council represented a significant move in our direction, namely towards effective and binding control of Community spending. A great deal of work remains to be done before the next Council, but the United Kingdom's determination to secure such control is very well understood and will not change.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: After the Copenhagen summit, may I welcome the Prime Minister's recognition that what she hailed as "an effective discipline" and a "lasting" agreement on the European Community budget at Fontainebleau in 1984 has, in practice, been neither effective nor disciplined and certainly not lasting. I also welcome the Prime Minister's report that there was a significant move towards an effective and binding control on community spending at the Copenhagen summit. Arising from that, may I ask the right hon. Lady what she intends to do before, and at the Brussels special summit in the New Year, to ensure that the move towards legally binding and effective controls on farm spending is complete and to ensure that Brussels in 1988 is not Fontainebleau revisited?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is correct in saying that the controls that we wished to be binding at Fontainebleau and which were contained in a minute and in a resolution were not binding because the guidelines were not respected. That is why we made it clear at the last European Council meeting that the controls this time must be embodied in regulations so that they are legally binding.
At that particular Council meeting, when discussing those regulations, we wanted the price controls to be automatically applied the moment it was known that there were surpluses for the year in question. It was in getting those price controls automatically applied by the


Commission that called for a great deal of debate because, undoubtedly, there were countries that wished to weaken the mechanism and weaken the control of agricultural surpluses through the method by which they were applied.
I am sorry that that is a complicated answer, but it was a complicated question. It is absolutely vital that we get detailed regulations embodied so that they can be applied by the Commission and that they are legally binding.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the near impossibility of getting agreement on anything in a 12-member Community, and in view of the extremely helpful role played by the Commission in supporting the manifestly sensible proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend and the Government, is it not clearly in British interests that the Commission should play a larger role in reaching decisions within the Community?

The Prime Minister: The Commission had a number of draft regulations, and let us have those as long ago as last September. The Council of Agriculture Ministers had considered them, but had not been able to agree on them. We took the three main ones, but there are many others related to other commodities.
It has been our objective, in accordance with what my hon. Friend wishes, to give the Commission a bigger role. It has to apply the method automatically. There was an attempt to take it back to the Agriculture Council, but many of us felt that, if the decisions went back to the Council, price control reductions would never be made. We are proceeding in the direction that my hon. Friend wishes.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is this really the best that the Prime Minister can do—to report that she has no practical measures to report to the House to implement the June agreements? Is it not a sad commentary on Britain's powerlessness in the face of world economic matters that the best that the summit members can do is to stand on the sidelines and congratulate the United States Administration and Congress on reaching agreement, because they cannot coordinate their own domestic responses to this dangerous position?

The Prime Minister: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Community has 12 members? I am sure that, in his party, he would consider 12 members quite a lot. We have to get agreement among all those 12 members. Each of them is naturally concerned to do the best that is possible for their own country, as each of them has a veto. But we must agree on broad general principles, such as not piling up more agricultural surpluses, and methods of getting rid of the existing surpluses. That is not easy, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to restrict debate or discussion. I hope that, had he been at that Council meeting, he would think that we had done a great deal of work which will count in reaching the final conclusions.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the House last agreed to an increase in own resources on the clear understanding that there would be effective budgetary discipline? It would therefore be quite wrong for her to come back to the House and ask for a further increase to achieve the same objective. Will she say what steps are proposed at present to prevent the Community from spending money that it does not have?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is among the first to know about detailed and effective control. What has happened, as he will know, is that the Commission has had directions about the maximum spending for agriculture. The Agriculture Ministers, meeting in their own Council, have come up with decisions which are also binding on the Commission, but their decisions amounted to more than the money available. We simply must stop that position, and that is why the Commission is now drafting binding regulations. It is up to us, the separate member states, to ensure that those regulations are effective, however detailed they may be. That is the method by which we are proceeding, and that is why we said that we would give no figure for increase of own resources until we had made certain that the regulations would be binding.

Mr. David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that she is bound to be under intense pressure to reach a compromise in February, ahead of the French general election, and while the Germans hold the chairmanship? Will she undertake to resist such pressure, knowing that she will have the support of the whole House in going for a long-term deal that is delayed, rather than yet another short-term and unsatisfactory compromise?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We shall indeed be under intense pressure, but we also apply intense pressure, and several of us are determined to tackle the problem of agricultural surpluses. We have put forward a specific proposal that, as long as other countries did the same, we would be prepared to depreciate the agricultural surpluses against our own budget. We thought that it would be better to start with a clean slate. However, although we were prepared to do that, not enough other countries were prepared to do the same.
The next point is to make certain that we do not build up future agricultural surpluses. Therein lies the difficulty. It is clear that a number of countries are more concerned to continue with the considerable incomes received by their own farmers, regardless of the surpluses that build up. We cannot take that view: the matter must be dealt with, and this time we must not run away from dealing with it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is it not the case that, despite eight years of bluster, rhetoric and phoney deadlines, the burden of the common agricultural policy on the British taxpayer is as bad now as it has ever been? Is it not further the case that the only way we shall achieve a sensible food policy in this country is when decisions are made in Britain and not in Brussels?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Farmers here have benefited very considerably from the common agricultural policy, as a result of which we grow a much bigger proportion of our own food than we used to. That has been beneficial to the economy. Nevertheless, our farmers are the first to understand that we cannot together go on accumulating surpluses and that we need to get rid of the overhang of past surpluses. They are being very realistic and are asking us to take proper decisions because they know that, if we go on as we are at present, there will be an emergency, and the changes that we would then have to make would be much more dramatic and not give them time to plan for the future. I think that they are behind us in the reasonable line that we are taking over the surpluses.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Prime Minister agree that the intended completion of the internal market by 1992 will bring major benefits to the industrial countries, but that there is no guarantee that those benefits will be evenly distributed to the poorer regions of the Community unless there is a strong regional policy. Does she also agree that such a policy can only be implemented if she accepts the Commission's proposal for a doubling of the structural funds and for a reduction of the regions to which they apply? The regions suggested by the Commission are Portugal, Greece, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, French overseas departments and parts of Spain. Will she tell us why she has reduced the list to Spain and Portugal? Does she not agree that the reforms of the common agricultural policy will hit hard those very same regions, thereby underlining the urgency of developing that regional policy?

The Prime Minister: The structural funds have increased in real terms by 47 per cent. since Fontainebleau in 1984 — a very considerable increase. It is totally unreasonable to ask now for a further doubling of those structural funds. That is a view taken by the majority of the nations in the Community. Of course, those who get far more out of the Community than they put in wish to vote for increases in structural funds, but they, too, must be reasonable.
A part of the increase in the funds, going particularly to Spain and Portugal, we thought was justified. One must remember, in making provision for writing off the surplus agricultural produce, that Spain and Portugal were not responsible in any way for it, yet might have to pay for some of it. So it seems reasonable, as their needs are greater than those of other countries, that they should have a larger part of the increase in the funds than other countries will have.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Did my right hon. Friend point out that if agricultural expenditure is at last controlled there will be no need for any increase in own resources? Did she further point out that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get approval for any proposal for an increase in own resources in this House?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's views on this. I know that technically he is correct, if one could have a very sharp reduction in the amount of food being produced now and also an actual disposal of all the surpluses. But, as he knows, about half the total budget goes towards storing and disposing of surpluses and not a great deal of it goes to farmers. He is therefore asking for too much at once. We must act at a speed which our farmers can plan for and which will be realistic. That will be the view that we shall take.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is there not a possible solution in procedure? Is it not a fact that the Agriculture Ministers, when they disagree, remit their difficulties to the Agriculture Council? Why do they not remit them to the Finance Council? Would it not be better for them to do so, for the Finance Council to set the limit and then for the Agriculture Ministers to decide how the money is to be spent? Why can the Council of Ministers not arrange for that sequence of events before Brussels, so that it is the combined Finance Ministers who decide and the Agriculture Ministers who execute?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is a fundamental fallacy in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He believes that if all decisions went to Finance Ministers they would all be quite tough. Some Finance Ministers are not like ours — they are not nearly as good. Some Finance Ministers are very tough until it comes to agricultural spending, and then they become almost like Agriculture Ministers. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's scheme would collapse, which is why we must get the method closely written down in detail in the regulations. It must be automatic in its application, so that a given amount of increase in any particular product must be assessed towards the end of the year and must result in a given amount of reduction in the price for that product. That will have its impact in future years.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her successful opposition to the oils and fats tax, which would have hit consumers and Third-world suppliers and, paradoxically, would have taxed the consumption of vegetable oils and encouraged the consumption of animal fats.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The oils and fats tax was discussed four separate times at the last European Council meeting at Brussels. Four of us fought it off each time, on the grounds that if there is a surplus of something it is quite absurd to put up the price. In any case, we do not want the price to be put up for the housewife, who is the ultimate consumer. I believe that the matter is now dead. Fortunately, we received many representations from overseas countries, some of whose only possible exports—to pay for imports from other countries — are those very oils and fats that the Community wanted to tax.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Lady said that there was a brief discussion on the Iran-Iraq war. Did she have an opportunity to discuss with the French Prime Minister the release of the French hostages? She may have seen in today's press that some of the Iranian opposition forces in France have been arrested; there is fear that this could have been part of a deal. If those Iranians return to Iran they are dead: there is no question about that. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady say what her thinking, and that of the Government, is on this matter, because we all want the hostages out, but we do not want innocent people who oppose regimes such as that in Iran to be sent back and faced with the death penalty.

The Prime Minister: The only way that I can answer the hon. Gentleman — I am not responsible for French matters—is to say, yes, I did have a bilateral discussion with the Prime Minister of France, who assured me that no ransom money at all has been paid for the hostages, and that there was no question of supplying arms to Iran. With regard to other matters, it is for the French Government to reply. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that just because people are beng deported it does not mean that they are being deported to their country of origin.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the lessons of Fontainebleau—[HON. MEMBERS: "—bleu."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) must ask a question of the Prime Minster and not address those below the Gangway.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the other members of the Community have learnt the lesson of Fontainebleau as thoroughly as we have? Does she believe that they are as committed as we are to financial discipline in the Community in the future? Will my right hon. Friend go to Brussels in February with the same ends and the same determination as when she went to Copenhagen?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is yes, I shall go with the same determination. Not all our colleagues are as committed to financial discipline as we are, which is why we had difficulty in fashioning the details of the regulation. That, too, will be one of the things that will take up most of our time at the next Council. We shall have to do a great deal of work in the meantime to make it clear that we must have the detailed regulations and that they must be effective. We shall go with the same determination; it is quite right that it might not be settled at the next Council, but I believe that it will be settled at the following one in June.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Prime Minister follow up her brief chat at Copenhagen with Mr. Haughey and request the extradition of Charles Caulfield who is living openly in the Irish Republic and is believed to have masterminded the Enniskillen Remembrance day massacre? He is believed to have been responsible, with others in a four-man hit squad, for the murder of over 100 people in Northern Ireland and is presently believed to be controlling and organising IRA activities in Fermanagh.

The Prime Minister: I let the Taoiseach know of my strong views on extradition and the changes that have been made in the same terms as I spoke about them to the House. I think that he knew the depth of feeling, both my own and that of the House. He has assured me that, if the changes are not satisfactory and do not result in effective extradition procedures, they will, as he told the Dail, be reviewed. People cannot be found guilty unless they are brought before a court, and he is anxious that those accused of crime be brought before a proper court to be found innocent or guilty.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although most people in Europe now accept that agricultural expenditure must be restrained, there is an unhealthy tendency to regard the social, regional and all other funds as acceptable alternatives that can therefore be increased? Does she agree that it is against precisely such forms of wasteful and arbitrary public expenditure that she has fought in this country for eight years? Will she do the same in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, there is a tendency to make extra demands on the Community budget. When we bear in mind that three countries make net contributions to the budget and nine countries take out net benefits, we have quite a battle to make certain that the results are reasonable. I agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot have effective financial discipline if considerable demands are made. We must watch that expenditure as closely as we watch expenditure on our national budget.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: These negotiations are dragging on a bit, aren't they? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the negotiations to deal with the Common Market's budget and forecast bankruptcy will be settled before the merger negotiations that are taking place

between the Liberals and the Social Democrats? May I give her a forecast? I think that both sets of negotiations will end in tears.

The Prime Minister: I think that one set of negotiations will not end in tears.

Hon. Members: Which?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the last set of strictly binding regulations presented to the House have proved to be a sick joke—with, for example, a record 500,000 tonnes of butter having been sold to Russia at a price of 6p a pound in the past seven months—does the Prime Minister agree that an agreement that does not curb agricultural production is nonsense? How can she call the proposals for cereals "tough", when all that is proposed is a 5 per cent. reduction in price after a level which exceeds the current level of production? Surely we need real answers to this and not just another cop-out.

The Prime Minister: The level of production of cereals is still a matter for argument and we are arguing precisely upon the point made by my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend is aware, butter surpluses are going down. I am afraid that one of the ways surpluses are reduced is by selling off to countries that are prepared to buy them. The only alternative would be to dispose of them as waste, and that would be repugnant to many people. We have to try to dispose of them as best we may, because I do not have the slightest shadow of doubt that the great overhang of surpluses has a damaging effect on world prices. Therefore, we dispose of them to those who can buy them and through food aid. However, butter for Africa is not in great demand.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: As it is the Government's stated policy to reduce citizens' dependency on the state, will the Prime Minister confirm that that is her policy for the farming community, too? If it is not, how much support for the farming community is she going for?

The Prime Minister: That is being argued about in the Community at the moment, to determine what should be the agricultural guideline. This year, agricultural spending in the Community has been of the order of 27,000 million ecu and we are arguing about the guideline for the future. It is true that we wish to reduce dependency on the state and we must remember that the produce of most farmers does not come near the Community or the Commission in any way, because the farmers grow and sell it themselves. It is only that which goes into intervention or to export which comes with the guidelines that I have described.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend remember the words of Cicero—that what to some is stubborness is to others pertinacity? Will she remember that it is offensive to ordinary people in this country that half the budget of the EEC is just wasted and note that the agricultural community of Scotland is delighted that she has had the principle to hold out for a real, honourable and lasting agreement?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I believe that we are getting the Commission — and a bigger and bigger proportion of members of the Community—on our side. It will still be a problem to get rid of those surpluses. As I said earlier, I wanted a clean slate approach, under which each of us


wrote off surpluses against our own budgets. It is now proposed that surpluses be written off against the Community budget—but by the year 1992, so by that time there should only be strategic surpluses and not the great overhang of surpluses that we have at present.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Despite all the Prime Minister's comments about stabilisers, the simple fact is that we have failed to achieve an acceptable solution to the common agricultural policy and to the budgetary problems of the EEC. Does the Prime Minister genuinely believe that a real solution acceptable to this country will be achieved by next spring, or will she be tempted to follow the solution that she has followed on other issues by going for the abolition of the common agricultural policy and the surcharging and disqualification of those not able to fix a budget by the appropriate time?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, 12 of us have to agree. Most of us are determined to have agricultural stabilisers for each and every commodity, and most of us want them to be effective. There is, indeed, a problem with agricultural surpluses. I remember that, when I first came into politics, it was asserted that we would have the problem of world food shortages, yet now there are surpluses. There are enormous competitive subsidies on the part of the United States, Europe and Japan. In the economic summit, we talk about getting those down as part of a joint effort. We also discuss it in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the GATT round. We need concerted action by the 12 members of the Community, and with the United States, Japan and other agricultural producers.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about Afghanistan, but will she go a little further and say what contacts are being made with the Soviet Union in an effort to persuade it to modify its position and get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I spoke about the matter yesterday, and I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that it will be spoken about now by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, too, is now trying to reach a solution. We were particularly anxious—as the Soviet Union is negotiating through the United Nations—to make it clear that the occupation of Afghanistan was unacceptable to the West and that we called for a withdrawal during the next year. The matter will be considered further through the United Nations.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: More than once this afternoon the Prime Minister has talked of the need to control agricultural surpluses. I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that we are not yet self-sufficient in sheepmeat production. She will be aware, too, of the importance of sheepmeat to producers in Wales and particularly of the importance of the sheep variable premium, worth about £22·8 million a year, to Welsh sheep producers. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the price support mechanisms available after the talks are concluded will be no less than they are at present and that Welsh sheep farmers will continue to enjoy the fullest support?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the sheepmeat regime. It has been discussed in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, and I assume that it will be further discussed by that body. We do not have a measure in the Community of whether we are self-sufficient. If we took that measure there would never be any oils or fats imported into the Community from any other country. If we stopped other countries exporting to us—particularly some of the Third-world countries—they would have no money to buy our exports of manufactured products. We do not make it a test of production that we should be self-sufficient. If we did, it would have a very damaging effect on New Zealand, which has come a long way — and fought in two world wars — to support us. The sheepmeat regime will be considered further by the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by farmers and consumers in my constituency as a robust and resolute stand to get down agricultural spending as part of the budget. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable sacrifices made by dairy farmers in my constituency since milk quotas, which they now accept, were introduced in 1984? Will she ensure that our European partners are aware that our farmers want a fair system, but a system that guarantees them a stable income?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Milk quotas are an example of a successful method of reducing agricultural production in a particular commodity. At first, they put up milk production, but now they are acting to get it down. That shows that other stabilisers could have equal success in getting rid of the surpluses that we still possess.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Prime Minister agree that since 1983—during the operation of the Fontainebleau agreement—we have contributed £4·4 billion to the Common Market? Would she confirm that 70 per cent. of the Common Market budget goes on the common agricultural policy and that strong vested interests prevent the CAP from being changed and that budget being reduced? Will she also confirm that our balance of trade in manufactured goods is about £10 billion in deficit, and will she not follow the bold and courageous leadership that she so admires in Communist Mr. Gorbachev and prepare alternative plans for withdrawal from the Common Market—in case the next summit is as disastrous as Copenhagen?

The Prime Minister: No, and I was not aware that that was Labour party policy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is enunciating from the Front Bench below the Gangway a new policy. That would be devastating to many of our manufacturing industries because the greater part of our exports go to Europe. If the hon. Gentleman would join us in trying to get good design, low industrial costs and greater efficiency, we should be able to take advantage of the Common Market to put up our manufacturing exports.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the farming community in the north of England will very much welcome her determination to have budgetary restraint in the community. Will she tell the House whether the opening of the Community to British financial services was considered at the Copenhagen summit, as that is looked for by the banks and insurance companies of this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We constantly tell our partners in the Community that while there is largely a free market in manufactured goods — there are still some barriers, although not necessarily monetary barriers—there is not a common market in services. When we get one —by 1992 — it will be of very great advantage to our service industries and we should be able to put up our balance of trade and services with the Community.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Prime Minister had brought to her attention an article in The Independent last Friday by Nicholas Ashford on "The Thatcher dominance of foreign policy", which is a serious discussion about the Prime Minister's relations with the Foreign Office? Can the right hon. Lady explain why her key adviser in Copenhagen, as in so many other matters, Mr. Charles Powell, has remained in post for four years, considerably longer than would normally have been expected—Mr. Ashford's question as well as mine?

The Prime Minister: I am very well satisfied with all the advice that we get from the Foreign Office on European matters—very well satisfied.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the difficult negotiations in which she is to be congratulated on her firmness—in the final analysis Scottish farmers expect her to deliver a fair and reasonable agreement and they would rather wait for a proper and final agreement that is seen to be fair than have a botched-up one which, at the end of the day, will bring no credit to anyone?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, our farmers realise that the problem must be dealt with. They want it to be dealt with so that they know how to plan for the future both in arable crops and livestock, and that is our objective.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why does not the Prime Minister come clean and admit to the House that the Copenhagen summit was a complete fiasco and a failure with a lot of discussion about matters over which the EEC has

effectively no control, such as the Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Since she is so concerned about disposing of the food mountains and was unable to reach an agreement on the CAP, why does not she dispose of the food mountains to the pensioners of Britain this Christmas? In my constituency of Newham, we have tonnes of beef and butter. Will she tell the pensioners of Newham, and, indeed, the rest of the country, that they can get their NHS choppers into those food mountains this Christmas?

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman was not at Copenhagen. It was not a fiasco; it was a very good meeting and very thorough. The hon. Gentleman has a habit of talking about meetings at which he was not present and about which he does not know. If one were to dispose of the present butter surpluses, they would immediately be replaced by new ones, because people would not buy the butter that is presently being produced but would go for the older butter, so there would be no increase in consumption.

Mr. Elliot Morley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?

Mr. Morley: Yes, Sir.
In the discussions about reducing the grain and cereal surpluses, was there any discussion about the use of nitrate fertilisers and their reduction, in view of their disastrous effect in some parts of Britain and also in line with the EEC's stated policy of balancing the agricultural and environmental needs of different nations?

The Prime Minister: No, we did not discuss that matter. We were concerned to make sure that, if there were increases in production, there would be an automatic reduction in price. Of course, increases in production can result from an increase in area or an increase in productivity. There are other measures to deal with farming by more natural methods, but we did not discuss them.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Welsh rate support grant report 1988–89 and the supplementary reports for 1984–85 and 1985–86, which I have today laid before the House.
I am today announcing the details of the 1988–89 settlement to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council, together with a number of key statistical tables, have been placed in the Library.
Before I give details of the settlement I shall refer briefly to the second supplementary reports for 1984–85 and 1985–86, which are based on authorities' audited outturn expenditure and are intended to be the final reports for those years. The 1984–85 report increases aggregate Exchequer grant by £9·5 million and makes provision for an increase in relevant expenditure and additional grant holdback. The 1985–86 report increases the aggregate Exchequer grant by £9·7 million. It restores grant previously withheld and increases provision for relevant expenditure.
I announced my proposals for 1988–89 to the House in July, and these have been the subject of consultations with the local authority associations. The report takes account of their views. The settlement for 1988–89 has six main elements. First, provision for relevant expenditure will be set at £1,894 million. This is £112·9 million or 6·3 per cent. over 1987–88 budgets, 1·8 per cent. over the expected rate of inflation and £8 million higher than the amount that I announced in July. Secondly, the current expenditure provision is set at £1,640 million, an increase of £81·9 million or 5·3 per cent. over 1987–88 budgets and 0·8 per cent. above the expected rate of inflation. Thirdly, aggregate Exchequer grant is £1,256 million, an increase of £80·9 million or 6·9 per cent. over last year. Fourthly, specific and supplementary grants total £241.2 million, an increase of 5·8 per cent. on 1987–88. Fifthly, domestic rate relief grant remains unchanged at 18·5p in the pound, and in aggregate totals £27 million. Sixthly, block grant is £987·8 million, an increase of £66·9 million or 7·3 per cent. over last year.
I have decided to retain the same block grant mechanisms as those used in the present year and have restricted changes to the methodology used in assessing needs to those requested by the local authority associations. I have thus provided the stability sought by the local authority associations. This is particularly important as the present rate support grant system reaches its penultimate year. The threshold and the slope of the poundage schedule remain unchanged, and multipliers will limit the effects of certain year-on-year changes in grant entitlement.
The settlement provides significant rating benefits for councils which increase spending by less than the anticipated rate of inflation. Their decisions will be rewarded with additional grant, with the obvious and welcome consequence of lower rate rises. Authorities' grant entitlements are entirely the outcome of their own spending decisions. They will get the grant to which they are entitled.
The 1988–89 settlement is fair and realistic. The increases in all the main components — relevant

expenditure, current expenditure, aggregate Exchequer grant and block grant—are well above the forecast rate of inflation. I hope that all councils in Wales will respond to this settlement, in the interests of their ratepayers, by keeping spending close to my plans, by making further progress towards greater efficiency and by securing moderate wage increases. They have a responsibility to their ratepayers to do so and to budget for low rate rises.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for the fact of the statement, if not for its contents. It makes a pleasant change from Government by press release.
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the key figures for the level and quality of our services are the current expenditure figure and the level of grant? Will he further confirm that, because the current expenditure figure covers salaries, wages and transport, it inevitably rises faster than the retail prices index, which, after all, reflects only the average spending pattern of the average family, so comparisons with a 4·5 per cent. change in the cost of living are irrelevant, inadequate and misleading?
In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his officials, in conjunction with the county officials, take part in an expenditure sub-group at which they try to agree the expenditure figure that will be necessary to sustain the existing level of services based upon the existing policies? Does he confirm that they have identified that the standstill increase would mean plus 11 per cent. rather than the 5·3 per cent. that he has announced today? That would require £1,700 million, not the £1,640 million that he has announced today. Therefore, we are faced with a shortfall in Wales of £60 million just to sustain services.
Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that the 5·3 per cent. increase is below the 7 per cent. increase in spending that has been allowed for England, and that that change alone has robbed Wales of £27 million?

Mr. Peter Walker: That is not true.

Mr. Williams: If it is not true, the right hon. Gentleman can show why later. I shall be only too happy if he does so.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the £60 million shortfall will be seen either as the scale of cuts that are necessary in services, or as the extra burden that will have to be borne by the Welsh ratepayers? In that context, does he recognise that, because of the penalty system, his statement means that cuts in services will be accompanied by increases in rates in Wales?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that yet again the percentage of Government grant has decreased from 66·7 to 66·3 per cent., itself a cut of £6 million? Does he recognise that, as a result of that percentage change, compared with the percentage of rate support grant that was paid in 1978–79, since the Government took office Wales has suffered a cumulative loss of rate support grant of £750 million? That is a massive deflation for Wales. Councils have had to find £750 million since then to replace that Government grant. It means that a sum of £750 million has been transferred at a cost to the Welsh taxpayer and that £750 million is not available for other desperate needs in Wales.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that today's inadequate and pathetic announcement follows last week's


announcement, by written answer, of capital expenditure for the councils next year which, on his own terms, represents a real cut of £10 million?
On a point of detail concerning the first sub-paragraph on page 2 of the statement, dealing with relevant expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the £8 million extra that is referred to is mainly an adjustment that is needed to recognise the fact that in the past public debt charges have been based on public expenditure White Paper figures which have been wildly out of date and which have led to the Welsh authorities being robbed in the past?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the failure to recognise the impact of salary increases —[Interruption.] They are important to the people of Wales. Conservative Members may not want the people of Wales to know about this, but I would bet that the press handout is several pages longer than the statement that was given to the House. We shall ask our questions whether or not the Government like it. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the failure to recognise the impact of salary increases over the whole range of local government employees covers the teachers' increase of 16 per cent., but refuses to recognise the repercussive effect of that on, for example, further education, for which a 4 per cent. figure is insisted on and used in the calculations?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a 4 per cent. figure was used in relation to manual workers, for whom there has been a settlement of 10·6 per cent.? Will he also confirm that, among manual workers, home helps have received a 17 per cent. increase — not because of acquisitiveness on their part, but because they have been asked to change their patterns of work? They have been asked not only to do home help work, but to become carers and to take on the work that was previously done in old people's homes, which are now being closed and cut.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no provision in the settlement for the fact that next year districts will incur the cost of starting the planning stages, which will be considerable, for the introduction of the community tax? Will he further confirm that the settlement does not make any provision for the extra costs that councils will incur in preparing for the Government's education initiatives, such as the decentralisation of school spending, which again must be prepared in advance, and therefore, must be financed by ratepayers? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, I feel bound to say that there will be a debate on these matters and that many of the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman can be gone into in detail then. This is the opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Williams: Every one has been a question, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, every one has been a different and relevant question to which the people of Wales want an answer.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year his predecessor stated that predictions of an increase of 10 to 20 per cent. in rates would not be necessary because last year's settlement had been a "very good" one? Indeed, he said:
In no case will the rate bill in districts increase by anything like that amount.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that history has proved that wrong and that 10 of the 37 districts increased their rates by 10 per cent., that two did so by over 20 per cent.
and one by 26 per cent.? That happened following what was supposed to be a "very good" settlement. The right hon. Gentleman has made no such grandiose claims for this settlement, so what does he expect the rate increases to be this year? Does he agree that as a result of this settlement rate increases will be greater than the rate of inflation generally and, in some cases, possibly as much as 15 per cent.?
In the past eight days the Secretary of State has announced cuts in councils' capital grant and a standstill in our health provision in Wales. Today he has announced a cut in council-provided services, coupled with a guaranteed increase in rate demands. How does the right hon. Gentleman account for his public protestations of concern and care for Wales, when his actions are calculated to deepen and worsen all the problems of Wales?

Mr. Walker: I have just checked, and my press handout is about half the size of my statement to the House, but not one tenth of the size of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with references to cuts and reductions, not one of which is true. My statement represents a real increase in the rate support grant. As regards local government expenditure, the increase that was announced for health expenditure was exactly the same. What amazes me is that the right hon. Gentleman served as a Minister in a Labour Government who cut capital expenditure on health by 30 per cent. in one year and reduced nurses' salaries by more than 20 per cent. over the whole period of that Government.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State is evading the question.

Mr. Walker: No, I am answering it.
Local authorities have, of course, made estimates and said that they would like more money. However, their highest estimate was for an increase of a further £60 million. What does the right hon. Gentleman think the local authorities were saying during the years when local authority expenditure in Wales decreased, because over the four years of the previous Labour Government it decreased by 4 per cent.? What did the local authority associations say then? I am delighted to say that, under this Government, local authority expenditure in Wales has increased by 11 per cent. in real terms. That should be compared with the 4 per cent. reduction of the previous Labour Government.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to concentrate, as he did, on a comparison with England. As the right hon. Gentleman has forced an argument, I shall give him those comparisons with England and with Scotland. The increase in relevant expenditure in Wales will be 6·3 per cent., and it will be 3·6 per cent. in England. Similarly, the increase for Scotland will he 3·6 per cent., compared with the 6·3 per cent. for Wales. The figures for the aggregate Exchequer grant show the same, that Wales has done very well, and I am delighted about that.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had forgotten about all the wage increases. There have been increases for manual workers, and it is outrageous to suggest that the main part of the manual workers' increases is for home helps who will care especially for old people. If the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the totality of the expenditure on manual workers, he should know that that


is a small fraction of the total. He is obviously saying to the people of Wales, "We are quite happy to have large increases that are way above the rate of inflation, but we expect the Government, not the people of Wales, to finance them." Wales is to receive a rate support grant of 66 per cent. from the Government, and again that is far higher than the figure for England or Scotland. Indeed, if councils are prudent and sensible and improve efficiency, rate increases in Wales will be low this year because of that totality.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back-Bench Members, I repeat that there will be a debate on this matter. Therefore, I ask for brief questions because this is a private Members' day and there is great pressure to be called in the subsequent debates.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that public expenditure in Wales remains at a sufficiently high level to cope with the damage that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has done by once again shooting his foot as well as the Labour party? In view of my right hon. Friend's success in securing a higher increase in rate support grant for Wales than has been secured for Scotland and England, does he accept that a duty lies on local authorities in Wales to reduce their expenditure and increase their efficiency to the maximum extent that they possibly can?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, and I have every reason to believe that local authorities in Wales are anxious to find every way of improving their efficiency and are fully collaborating on ideas and concepts to do that. I hope that that will enable them to provide better services at a lower and more effective cost for the current year.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that this year's actual outturn will include a backdating of the manual settlement, with a restructuring back to September, and that it will mean an 11 per cent. increase for at least half the year? Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman uses percentage comparisons, does he do so on a base that includes that increase in this financial year and, likewise, the increase for white collar workers of 7 per cent.? Will he confirm that adequate money is available for county councils, in particular, to carry out the responsibilities under the disabled persons legislation, which involves additional expenditure? Will he confirm also that resources will be available for flood control, which will continue into the next financial year?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I can confirm that. On the second point, relating to the manual workers' claim, there will be implications for the coming year. Earlier today I spoke to local authorities in Wales. They argued that, although there is a substantial increase above the rate of inflation, there is also an improvement in productivity, and that if there is an improvement in productivity during the coming year, it will balance the increased cost of the expenditure. I hope that that will be the case. It is a substantial claim. If there is no improvement in productivity as a result, it will add to the burden on ratepayers in Wales.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining a generous settlement for Wales. As

he rightly pointed out, it is better than those for England and Scotland. Will he confirm that the settlement should also be favourable for Welsh ratepayers and will lead to no more than low rate rises, provided that local authorities concentrate on their statutory obligations? Will he try to get that message across to Clwyd county council in particular? At the moment, an additional 34 primary school teachers are, in effect, being sacrificed to allow for loan repayments, maintenance and running costs of a highly dubious tourism project.

Mr. Walker: On the last point, I note what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that Clwyd county council will note it, too. It is a provision that we are making this year for those local authorities which concentrate on their statutory responsibilities and do their best to improve efficiency. It will be good news for ratepayers in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: The report is not as realistic and fair as the right hon. Gentleman maintained. Education looms large in the 1988–89 report that he presented today. Is the provision sufficient to save Connah's Quay high school from closure? Parents and staff are deeply concerned about the likelihood of closure. Will provision be sufficient to prevent the closure of Golftyn infant school? I have had strong representations from parents. I ask him to read Her Majesty's inspector's report on Wales. He will see that it is clearly stated that a great deal of money is needed to cope with the bad state of classrooms and the need for new equipment and textbooks. Does he say that the money that Her Majesty's inspector says is needed for 1988–89 will be provided?

Mr. Walker: Over the past couple of years, there has been an improvement in capital allocations for educational purposes. On the question of closures, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unable to comment specifically on the two cases that he quoted. It is true to say that in the Principality as a whole there will be school closures, not as a result of financial pressures, but because of the changing demography of some areas. Quite a few proposals are coming up on that basis. The provisions that have been made, and the priorities that we have given, mean that there will be better provision for educational buildings.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the people of Wales will recognise the settlement, which is 1·8 per cent. above the rate of inflation, as good news for Wales? Will he point out to local authorities that it is important that they keep their wage demands under control? That is one way in which they can moderate demands on ratepayers. Will he point out also to local authorities in Wales that there are 125,000 surplus places in our schools, which cost £20 million a year, and that we need to take action on the matter? Will he point out also to the people of Dyfed, of which I represent part, that if Dyfed county council follows the good advice in the settlement, it should be able to reduce its rates by 2·1 per cent.?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the county council will note my hon. Friend's remarks about its prospects in relation to rates. Many education authorities throughout Wales are coming forward with proposals for school closures because of demographic changes. That is always a difficult thing for them to do. As all of us who have been hon.


Members for any length of time know, any school closure anywhere is a matter of distress for the parents and pupils whom it affects. There is no doubt that there is a case in many parts of Wales for changes in school structures to take place.
In their negotiations on wage increases, it is important for local authorities to recognise that if they go ahead with wage increases that are way above the rate of inflation and are not linked with improved productivity, there will be an increased burden upon ratepayers.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As the right hon. Gentleman commences his slow ascent up the learning curve of Welsh local government and central Government finance to local government, may I ask whether he agrees that the combination of his two announcements will cause great difficulties to local authorities in Wales? In particular, will he comment on the cancellation of the expected funding for next year of the Butetown link in south Glamorgan? Does not the cancellation of the expected announcement of a road of great importance to inner-city regeneration in south Wales mean that next year we could have disaster in the docklands in Cardiff?

Mr. Walker: It is not a cancellation; it is looking at the financial year for which provision was originally made. It was expected to start at the end of 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been suggestions of an alternative to it, which are being considered at present. I must await that consideration. In view of that, it is more likely that it will start in the following financial year. Provision will be made for it then.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Has the Secretary of State made any provision for increased housing expenditure? In particular, will he free the product of council house sales and allow councils to build more housing for rent? What is his estimate of the effect of public sector pay awards? Because of population sparsity, counties such as Powys are having great difficulty in financing their budgets. In the coming year it is likely that Powys will have a double figure rate increase because of the high cost of providing services there.

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that within the specific grant provisions we have made a substantial increase in the amount provided for the important matter of home improvements. The hon. Gentleman should note that it is significant that the increase that we are providing for next year is almost equivalent to the total expenditure that was made in the last year of the last Labour Government. Therefore, our record on house improvements is substantial. Indeed, it dwarfs anything that was done by our predecessors.
The answer to the question about the specific problems of Powys is that to some extent population problems are taken into consideration in the calculations. I hope that the provisions in the Housing Bill that is about to come before the House will help in respect of rented accommodation.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State recently made a statement on his great interest in and desire to improve the valleys. He said that they were beset with problems and difficulties that were equivalent to those in any inner-city area. Where in the settlement is there any hope for valley authorities? Will they have anything to do the job that the Secretary of State said needs to be done? Does he intend

to hand over local government powers to quangos such as the Welsh Development Agency and other organisations so that they may do local government's job for it?

Mr. Walker: One must look at the figures and the specific grants. From the visit that I made with the hon. Gentleman to his constituency, I know that one of the greatest problems in his constituency, as in all valley constituencies, is that of house improvements. I hope that, when thinking of what is happening in his constituency, he will bear in mind that previous expenditure on house improvements was a meagre £29 million a year. Under this Government it has not been £29 million but £92 million a year. That is an enormous increase. In the provision that I have made for this year there is another £7·4 million in specific grants for house improvements. I am delighted that that improvement has taken place. For the Rhondda, it must be a happy contrast with what happened in previous years.

Dr. John Marek: Before the Secretary of State accuses Labour hon. Members of being misleading with statistics, will he look at his own speeches and not make claims about how much the last Labour Government paid nurses, for example, while excluding the Clegg award, which was something for which his Government had no good words at all between 1979 and 1983?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was not one word in his statement about the level of service, and that the people in the Principality will view this settlement as a difficult one for local authorities that wish to keep up the standards of service? Will he respond to the question of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) about local authorities being able to spend the proceeds of council house sales without restrictions, so as to be able to build more houses? Will he take off those restrictions, which are causing a great deal of problems and anguish throughout Wales?

Mr. Walker: It is important to recall, when one mentions standards and service throughout the Principality, that during the lifetime of the last Labour Government wages and salaries fell in real terms by 21 per cent. Under this Government they have risen by 29 per cent.
When examining the problems of the Health Service now, we still have the burden of the 30 per cent. capital cuts that were made in one year by the last Labour Government. The provisions that we have made for local authorities and for service, and the manner in which we have considered the whole range of potentialities, show that this is a fair and sensible award that will help service standards in Wales.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Secretary of State explain why the local authorities in Wales should heed his strictures when he has clearly not listened to what they have said to him since his provisional statement in July; or, if he has, he has completely failed to understand the facts and figures put forward to him? Rather than hiding behind generalisations, will he accept that, even on his guidelines, and with the achievement of efficiencies and the use of equivalent balances this year and last year, Cardiff city council, without allowing for the additional costs of the poll tax and other such impositions of central Government, will need a 12 per cent. rate rise


to stand still on the basis of today's figures? Will he confess that he has either failed to understand the facts and figures given to him by local authorities, or he has tried to mislead the House?

Mr. Walker: In the meetings that I had with the local authorities they said that they wanted more money. I pointed out that I had carefully studied all such arrangements since 1973, that the minutes of all such meetings were available to me—I understood what must have taken place at the meetings for which minutes were not available—and that there had never been a single meeting at which the authorities had said, "The figures that we asked for have been given to us. Thank you very much, Secretary of State." I pointed out that they might be more satisfied with the past year, in which real expenditure on local government had risen by 11 per cent., than with the four years in which it fell in real terms.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Minister aware of recent reports that prove that the spiral of decline in low wage rates in Wales is continuing, to the extent that we are now in the disgraceful position in which a full third of Welsh local authority workers are below the European decency level? It will be absolutely right, proper and inescapable for local authorities to increase their rates way beyond the rate of inflation.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that—as he said —the results of today's announcement will be similar to those of the previous announcement, in that there will be few changes in the block grant assessment? That means that the majority of local authorities in Wales will still be on a system known as the negative marginal rate of grant, which has become known as the ratepayers' rip-off, because it will mean that, when cost-effective, good-value local authorities have to increase their expenditure by a single pound, the amount that they receive in grant will not go up but will be reduced by 85p.
Will the Secretary of State confirm the example of Newport borough council, which, on the provisional assessment, will find that its increase is derisory? Its current rate of GREA is £12,441,000, and under the announced arrangements — if they remain the same —that will increase next year to only £12,506,000—an increase of only 0·5 per cent.

Mr. Walker: I really think the hon. Gentleman should study the facts of the settlement. Of course it will mean great rate increases if local authorities decide to spend a great deal more money. If they want to go back to the levels of housing activity in improvement grants that they had under the last Labour Government, they will have to make big reductions. I am glad to say that they have got used to higher levels of activity. The Exchequer grant this year to Wales is equal to £1,200 per household in Wales. That is far higher than the Exchequer grant to England and Scotland, so I believe that, with prudence and efficiency, there will be no need for substantial rate increases.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State must be aware that, at this moment, Welsh local authorities have in their coffers about £280 million of capital receipts from the sale of council houses. Is he prepared to allow them to spend more than 15 per cent.

of that each year, particularly when, in his own constituency, local authorities are allowed to spend 20 per cent. each year? Will he announce an increase to enable more council houses to be built?

Mr. Walker: If we were to change the level to that in my constituency, Welsh local authorities would be at a net disadvantage because of other factors that would be taken into account. Welsh local authorities well understand that, unlike the hon. Gentleman. I also point out, however, that there are possibilities of increased receipts from sales in Wales. There is no doubt that the selling of local authority housing in Wales has gone somewhat slower than in other areas. I hope that Wales will have a new sales drive, particularly in view of the additional provisions made by the Government to encourage people to buy their own homes.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister agree, that if the economy is growing at 4·5 per cent., and inflation is running at about 4·5 per cent., then all other things being equal, we should have had an increase of 8 or 9 per cent. on last year's figures? Given that the figure is only 6 per cent., does that not really mean that, as the cake is growing bigger, the share that local authorities are obtaining is growing smaller and smaller?

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that, in real terms, expenditure by local authorities has risen in real terms, in contrast with previous years, when it went down.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Was the Minister trying to say, in answer to the penultimate question, that, in spite of our comparative poverty levels and the degree of social problems in Wales, Welsh local authorities are receiving more than their fair proportion of Exchequer grant?

Mr. Walker: I am saying that I am pleased that the grant percentage in Wales is 66·3 per cent.; in England it is 46·2 per cent.; and in Scotland it is 55·4 per cent.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that, after reading the document and listening to the exchanges this afternoon, I am struck by the fact that the Government have become masterly in the art of duplicity? Does he appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) clearly brought out the fact that 11 per cent. is needed —according to the informal discussions that took place beforehand — to maintain existing services? The Secretary of State did not answer that point. Yet a package of £60 million less than what is required is presented as a sort of bonanza to our local authorities. I say to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that Clwyd in particular will suffer badly as a result of the settlement.
In addition, there is a restriction on our local authorities because if they attempt to redress the deficit by raising the rates they are penalised. They are put in a straitjacket by a Government who are supposed to believe in local decision making. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, when cuts are announced, it is local authorities which have to take the can back and the Government just wash their hands of the whole business?
Education buildings are deteriorating, children are being educated in a shabby environment and there is a shortage of books and other materials. These evil effects are equally calamitous for our old people. Surely that cannot be good for the future of our country. The


Secretary of State is a newcomer to Wales, and I say especially to him that we are suffering from mass unemployment, let alone a housing crisis, which he, it seems, is beginning to recognise. In the years of this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say again to the Front Benches that there is to be a debate on this matter? Hon. Members should put questions to the Secretary of State. The time to make a debating speech will come later.

Mr. Hughes: I conclude by asking the Secretary of State to recognise that we have been robbed of £750 million since the Conservative Government came to power, because that is the amount of money that we would have received if the formula adopted by the Labour Government had prevailed. This is a sad story of a Scrooge-like settlement being presented with a Saatchi and Saatchi gloss on it.

Mr. Walker: The art of duplicity which the hon. Gentleman described applies to anybody who can stand at the Dispatch Box and criticise an increase of 112 million, or 6·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman sat on this side of the House when his party was in government and in each of its last three years it reduced, in real terms, the rate support grant for Wales. In 1977–78 it went down by 9 per cent. and in 1978–79 it went down by 4 per cent. I am glad that under this Government it is increasing in real terms.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions. Very understandably and properly, during Prime Minister's Question Time, you called the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Onslow). In view of the well-known fact, which is often referred to, that the hon. Gentleman was in a former incarnation a member of the security services, may I ask whether the BBC if it chooses to—as it normally would with the chairman of the 1922 Committee — can broadcast the hon. Gentleman's contribution during Prime Minister's Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: This is a re-run of what went on yesterday. I am not responsible for what the BBC' puts out on the radio. I did not call the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Onslow) because he was chairman of the 1922 Committee, but because he had not previously in this Parliament put a question to the Prime Minister.

Sale of War Toys (Prohibition)

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale and advertisement of toys and games which are based on military and other weapons.
It is commonplace these days for politicians and others to deplore the current levels of violence in our society, and of course they are right to do so. However, few if any seem prepared to acknowledge that from the earliest formative years we encourage violence among our male children by the toys that we give them.
Last week, the Government produced a White Paper on firearms and there was a general welcome on all sides for the proposals to tighten controls on the holding of firearms. Many of us thought that the proposals did not go far enough. However, if we truly wish to attempt to reduce the levels of violence in our society, we must look to the root causes. War toys are just one of the many influences that create an unhealthy acceptance of violence in our society.
Children are presented with a wide range of violent images. They see them in films, comics and videos and, most important, they see violence on television. The influence of television on children's behaviour for good or bad is almost beyond reasonable question. Through all the different media, violence is super-abundant. In most cases it is sanitised and often glamorised, and we use violence as a form of entertainment. The overall impact is to lower our resistance threshold to violence.
People are not born violent; they acquire such feelings and attitudes as part of the learning process. If the House is serious about wanting to create a less violent society, it must be prepared to go right back to the time when the first messages and images of violence are received by our children. It is generally accepted that play is essential for the psychological development of children. Therefore, the toys with which they play are of great significance and the gun culture has its seeds in children's play.
In our society we stereotype our children from the beginning. We give our male children guns, and to girls we give dolls. In effect, we condition boys for war and girls for childbirth. It cannot be a mere coincidence that nearly all crimes of violence are committed by men, often against women. I mentioned earlier the influence of television on children. Anyone who looks at children's television at the moment will see just how many advertisements there are for toys. Many of those toys fall into what I would describe as the category of war toys.
A recent TV Times contained an insert put out by what was said to be the world's biggest toy superstore—Toys `R' Us. One of the toys shown in the insert is a photon electronic warrior battle game. I understand that it is very popular. Boys will be boys, and the idea is that they actually fire at each other and the hits that they record are electronically registered. This is target practice and is precisely the sort of thing that the police and the armed forces go in for, for more serious purposes. We are teaching our children to point weapons at each other and to fire them accurately.
In the various toy shops that I have gone round, I have seen children using this toy. Christmas is supposed to be a time of peace and good will, but toy stores like Hamleys

in London look like a cross between Aladdin's cave and a terrorist's arms dump. Hamleys refused to co-operate with me, but I went there all the same and examined just some of the war toys that are on sale this Christmas. For the child of three years and upwards there are any number of toys that represent in horrifying accuracy machine guns, bazookas, knives, hand guns and grenades. Many of those toy weapons come with realistic firing noise accessories that have made cowboy guns and caps seem relatively wimpish. I shall describe a few of them.
The SA80 weapons system by Lone Star is described in a sales blurb which says:
A 50-shot quick fire military rifle. Specially designed, insulated non-slip grip. Sight range adjuster. Cheek support for steady aim. Combat shoulder butt. Hand grip allows firing from hip or shoulder. Removable magazine diecast metal. Recommended for three years and older.
That is the sort of toy that is being put in the hands of children who are three years of age and older. There is also the combat force set by Arco. It consists of
a rapid-fire machine gun, combat pistol and holster",
and something called "soft and safe hand grenades". I have never heard of a soft and safe hand grenade.
There is another toy that is described as "America's newest hero". On the box there is a picture of Rambo and the toy is called a bazooka. The blurb says:
It comes with real bazooka shooting sound.
That is for four-year-olds and upwards. The Rambo character is widely used at the moment in the media. At one point Rambo is seen as a big hero, but after the recent Hungerford massacre Michael Ryan was described by the media as a Rambo-style killer. We are giving our children totally conflicting messages, and it is not surprising that so many of them are violent, aggressive and wholly confused. There are many other such toys. I cannot go all the way through them, but the last one that I shall mention is called a 36 balloon grenade by Entertech. Its attraction is that one can load it while on the run and is recommended for seven-year-olds and upwards.
War toys claim 20 to 25 per cent. of the toy market in Britain and most of them are imported from the United States, West Germany, Macao, Taiwan and China. I am mainly concerned about the realism of today's war toys. They seek to replicate the genuine article. Indeed, that is their strongest selling point when trying to attract children or their parents.
My Bill would seek to impose a ban on the sale or manufacture of toys based on post-First World War weapons. In Sweden, a voluntary agreement was reached in 1979 between the Government and the Association of Swedish Toy Retailers to cease marketing toys, games, and modelling kits based on post-1914 war images. In 1982, a resolution was adopted by the European Assembly which expressed concern about the role of the mass media in creating a culture of war and violence, which in turn created the demand for war toys. The resolution went on to request EEC countries to take steps to ban the advertising of war toys and the manufacture and sale of replica guns and rifles. The assembly noted that, in West Germany, the EEC's major toy manufacturer, opinion polls have shown that 83 per cent. of the population were in favour of banning war toys.
It is encouraging to report that I have received dozens of letters from all over the country in support of the measures proposed in the Bill. I have had only two expressing opposition—[Interruption.] They were not


from toy manufacturers. Those two letters could be classified as coming from nutters in the "get back to Moscow" category.
Some commentators have said that, even if the House accepted the Bill, children would simply use pieces of wood to represent guns. That is true. One cannot hope to eliminate overnight the accumulation of years of conditioning that we have all received. My Bill would be but a start. It is vital that we start eliminating images of violence and there is nowhere better than at the outset of a child's life.
We are now in the middle of the Christmas present buying season. There is no necessity to be a Christian to find the idea of giving toy weapons wholly incompatible with the Christmas message of peace and good will. It is a very long way from Jesus Christ to Rambo. No adult, even remotely concerned about the level of brutality in our society, should contemplate purchasing war toys for children. To so so is to accept the enfeebling attitude that we can do nothing, because violence is part of the natural order. I do not accept such an assertion, and I beg leave of the House to introduce a Bill which will seek to remove one of the root causes of violence in our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Chris Mullin, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Ann Clwyd and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

SALE OF WAR TOYS (PROHIBITION)

Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale and advertisement of toys and games which are based on military and other weapons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Points of Order

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, in a series of exchanges with Mr. Speaker, concerning the injunction obtained against the BBC by the Government to prevent production of a programme on the secret service, several hon. Members raised the point that the injunction prevented the BBC and other news media from reporting some of the proceedings of the House. It could also affect the circulation of Hansard. In columns 26 and 27 of the Official Report of 7 December, Mr. Speaker undertook to reflect on this matter and report to the House.
Although Mr. Speaker is not in the Chair, perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could tell us what action Mr. Speaker proposes to protect the integrity and the right of the House to discuss what it wishes—and also, perhaps more importantly, the right of every person in this country to know freely and without hindrance from the courts what is discussed in the House. If this injunction is to persist, there will be an infringement of the liberty of Parliament by the courts. Parliament is meant to be the supreme body in this country and should not be hindered in this way by the courts.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a long point of order. The hon. Gentleman will have reflected upon the exchanges which took place yesterday between hon. Members and Mr. Speaker. I shall convey to Mr. Speaker the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order on a similar subject yesterday. We are just about to move into the debate on the Adjournment for the Christmas recess and you are occupying the Chair. If an hon. Member caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and raised the subject of the programme "My Country, Right or Wrong", which is now subject to the injunction, I hope that you will give an assurance that the BBC is free to broadcast that speech on "Yesterday in Parliament," if it so wishes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what Mr. Speaker said yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is raising hypothetical issues. We should wait until that time comes and I shall deal with them at that stage. We should now move on to the Adjournment motion and see what happens during that debate.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a brief point of order which relates to those raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Today's edition of The Independent states that the Conservative Back-Bench defence committee apparently intends to hold what the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) has described as an in-depth investigation of the secret service. I have no complaints about that—it may be very useful—but it seems to be a case of the BBC not being allowed to go ahead with its programme, for reasons explained by the Attorney-General on Friday, while Conservative Members are allowed without any difficulty to hold an in-depth investigation of the security services. If the programme had gone ahead and there had


been no injunction, a former senior official of MI5 was due to address the committee tomorrow as part of the investigation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a longstanding Member of the House and he must be aware that this is not a matter within the competence of the Chair.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely a more fundamental principle is involved. The House has always had a reputation for saying, and a right to say, what it wants. No court or king has been allowed to interfere with the right of free speech in this place. The injunction infringes that right.
Part of that right is to say what one believes it is right to say and more importantly, to have what one says reported by the press, the Official Report or the media, be it television or radio, although proceedings in the House are not televised. Surely our rights as Members of Parliament are infringed when we are not allowed to say what we want to say because it cannot be reported. Surely we need an urgent ruling on this matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at yesterday's Official Report he will see that there was a full exchange in which Mr. Speaker gave his views. The matter must now rest there.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House at its rising on Friday 18th December do adjourn until Monday 11th January, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 18th December until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. John Biffen: The motion should secure the whole-hearted approval of the House. We sit for more of the year than any other legislative body in western Europe, and each day we sit for longer hours than our counterparts.
I believe that the topic engendered by the motion is particularly relevant to Shropshire, because it covers the period during which consultation will take place on the Shropshire health authority's proposals for the closure of 10 cottage hospitals. That proposition will go for consultation on 1 January. Therefore, I want to establish points before then, and they can only be established this afternoon in the hope that they will be more generally available by the time the consultation begins and before Parliament returns after the recess.
I shall not detain the House with the background as to why the closure of 10 cottage hospitals is being considered in Shropshire. That proposal derives from a variety of factors. Shropshire health authority believes that the decision to proceed with Telford district general hospital is a major factor in the authority's planning and use of resources. Other considerations have caused the authority to present the current option for the consideration of the county. In common with my parliamentary colleagues from Shropshire and the overwhelming majority of voters, patients and residents in the county, I can state that there is bewilderment about and deep hostility to a proposition that would remove two thirds of the county's cottage hospitals. If that proposal were put into effect, it would stand as a precedent for many other rural authorities with a network of cottage hospitals which perform a valued role in the health care of the community.

Mr. Derek Conway: It is important that the House should be aware that when my right hon. Friend speaks against the proposed closure of the cottage hospitals, he is making clear his opposition and that of his constituency of Shropshire, North. However, he also voices the opposition felt in my constituency of Shrewbury and Atcham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and, I presume, in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).
It is important for the House to note that the proposed building of the Telford district general hospital on such a large scale will cause the closure of the cottage hospitals and may cause even more closures according to the health authority's consultation document. The fact that spending has risen in Shropshire from £30 million to £72 million reveals that this is not a question of a cut in resources, but a wrong decision on the health authority's part to build the giant hospital at Telford and close the rural services. That is the root of the problem. My right hon. Friend speaks for the Conservative Members representing Shropshire constituencies when he makes his points.

Mr. Biffen: I am pleased to accommodate my hon. Friend's remarks in my speech. His was a very wise preemptive strike, in case he is less than lucky later in the debate.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) would agree that there is lively debate in the county about the factors that have given rise to the £3 million and which explain the present cost-cutting exercise. The Shropshire health authority view appears to be that proceeding with the Telford district general hospital is not the reason for the proposed closure of the 10 cottage hospitals. All those points will be argued during the consultative period.
The point that I want to put on the record this evening —one that I hope will receive a reply before 1 January when the consultative period begins—is that one or two facts should be available for the guidance of those in Shropshire who will undertake what will be a most important exercise when they explain in the most vigorous and compelling terms why they believe that the traditional network of health care, based upon local community hospitals, should persist.
First, I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to tell us in the most general terms— I realise that he can say this only in general terms—what are the virtues and valued characteristics of the cottage hospitals so that they can be taken into account when evidence about the need for their retention is put to the community health council.
Secondly — in a sense it is unnecessary for me to make this request, but this might be helpful—may we have an assurance that the consultative procedure will not be a mere token or ritual? That procedure is at the very heart of determining how decisions are taken about the health services of any community, and in this instance of Shropshire. All those who give evidence at the meetings to be called by the community health council will want to feel that their arguments and cases, which will have compelling implications, will be taken seriously by the community health council. Indeed, I would like an assurance that the Government would want to take account of that evidence. I hope that the council in no sense has a prejudged view of the outcome of health services in the county. I am sure that many of the misunderstandings are unintended and have arisen at random.
The county's paper is the Shropshire Star and it has more prestige and circulation than The Times. I must secure my quotes somehow or other. We were graced by a visit from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say this with a certain amount of trepidation because the Treasury has a presence in all these matters. It is not just a matter of the DHSS communing with other elements interested in health. Labour Members represent a party with a long tradition of Treasury involvement in health affairs, so hon. Members will be under no illusions about this.
In the Shropshire Star on Friday 13 November Angela Davies reported:
Chancellor Nigel Lawson today defended the decision to close ten Shropshire cottage hospitals.
That was not the happiest of lunchtime reading. After making references to the case and the controversy about the closures, Angela Davies continued:
He added: 'The closure of the cottage hospitals is taking place alongside the concentration of all the most modern facilities in one large new general hospital'.
He said that the cash injection would allow better management and a real improvement in patient care.

It is possible to construe those remarks as though Telford district general hospital was the alternative to the 10 cottage hospitals. I cannot believe that that was intended. I informed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that I would be referring to the newspaper cutting this afternoon. It would be to the advantage of the House and to all those who are conducting this most important health debate in Shropshire if we knew clearly that the consultative period was a time of open argument and open mind and that no decisions had been arrived at prematurely, least of all by the Treasury.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) represents a constituency that I know as Oswestry, as it was until the boundary commissioners in their foolishness over constituency names up and down the country replaced it with something else. The right hon. Gentleman raised a local issue, which is the purpose of the debate in many respects. He raised an important local and county issue.
I want to consider a national issue. I want to argue that we should have a statement from the Government on their policy with regard to the use of the Official Secrets Act and to comment on the drift towards using other methods, namely the use of the civil injunction to achieve what apparently Ministers believe cannot be achieved by using the criminal law of the land. We should know what Government policy is in that respect. I must say to the Leader of the House that two Ministers are involved—the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Official Secrets Act 1911, and the Attorney-General, who is responsible in the context of the public interest for determining whether prosecutions should take place under the legislation.
In 1976, I became Home Secretary with the full intention — which I never achieved — of reforming the Official Secrets Act, as I had been a member of the Franks committee in 1972 which had put forward recommendations. I thought that, four years later, I was on the royal road towards achieving that aim. After I had made a statement as to my intention, I also said something else. I did that at the request of the then Attorney-General, who spoke to me in that distancing way that Attorneys-General should use when talking to a Cabinet Minister about legislation that he is to use. The then Attorney-General said that, as I had said that we would implement the Franks committee findings, he wished me to tell the House that the Attorney-General would take into account what the Home Secretary had done.
In practice, that meant that the Attorney-General would seek to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act only if it was in the public- interest, and involved matters classified as secret and above, and that anything below that classification would have to be dealt with by the Civil Service or whoever was involved. At least everybody knew where they were.
I appeared in court on behalf of Mr. Ponting not because I approved of what he had done, but because the Government had said that the document about the Belgrano that he had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was not a serious security leak and was not classified secret or above. That man


should not have been dealt with under the criminal procedure of part II of the Official Secrets Act. I was being consistent with the decision of the previous Government.
We have never heard from this Government—from the Attorney-General or from various Home Secretaries — that they have turned their back on that decision. Instead, we have drifted along, as was shown by that interesting section in last Saturday's edition of The Independent which gave a list of some 14 relevant cases which arose between 1979 and December 1987.
I should like to clarify a point about the book "Their Trade is Treachery", which was published in March 1981. No action was taken by the Government. In my view, sections of that book should have been dealt with under part II of the Official Secrets Act, yet no action was taken. I believe that that book contained information that should not have been given. I have already referred to the Ponting case, and I have read carefully the Wright book. I shall refer to the dirty tricks allegations and the other allegations that emanate from Northern Ireland. Under no heading can they be classified as secret, and nobody can argue that the information should not be openly revealed, because it was not a state secret. It is what the Franks report argued—too often the Official Secrets Act is used to protect the weaknesses of the Government or of Government services.
I shall never stop referring to the 1924 Zinoviev case. Without offending golf players, there are people in the security services who take a golf club attitude to politics. That is to the detriment of the security services.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker told me that it would be in order for me to refer to the programme which has not yet been beamed by the BBC, in which I and others took part. He told me that I could not read a transcript, but that I could say what I had said. I said, and I willingly repeat, that the MI5 officers who served me in Northern Ireland were excellent. They knew what they were talking about and I happily speak in their favour. When it comes to dirty tricks, it would be false for the Government to argue that they must be protected by criminal sanctions or in any other way, particularly as the Prime Minister, the Law Officers and the Home Secretary have said in this House that they do not know what was in the inquiry of 1976.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what appeared in some editions of The Guardian yesterday? The former MI5 official who was due to speak to the Conservative Back-Bench defence committee meeting which was to have occurred tomorrow but has been cancelled because of the publicity and the injunction against the BBC, is Mr. Charles Ellwell who, apparently, after carrying out various activities on behalf of the security services in investigating the National Council for Civil Liberties — an organisation which I would not have thought could be considered subversive — went to work for Common Cause, an organisation which is extremely Right-wing. It is possible that that unfortunate connection illustrates only too well that some MI5 officials are not politically impartial.

Mr. Rees: If the dirty tricks allegations in the Wright book, which was only a small section—about two or three pages—contain any truth, my hon. Friend is right. While that may or may not be true, I can say that the men with whom I worked discussed things extremely sensibly

and knowledgeably. It would not be their job to discuss them in a way of which I approve, but they served me well. That does not invalidate what I want investigated about the so-called dirty tricks and the allegations that emanate from Northern Ireland.
Part of part II of the Official Secrets Act would probably be better in section 1, but that is a matter for change in future. Instead of that, there is only drift.
I certainly will not get involved in the question of sub judice, but I assume that as no action was taken against the article in yesterday's Independent by Mr. Peter Kellner, I can use part of it to support my argument. He points out that the programme was not secret. When I went into that busy little room to give my half-hour's worth, which no doubt was cut down, I was informed that everybody knew about it and that the programme was not secret. The programme certainly was not secret; the just former Lord Chancellor was on it.
On that occasion, I heard that former intelligence officers were on the programme, and I assume that former intelligence officers would have told MI5. I find it astonishing—indeed, 1 do not believe—that the first that the Law Officers or the Government heard about it was in the "Peterborough" column in The Daily Telegraph.
What Peter Kellner wrote summed it all up:
The notion that the intelligence community only woke up last Thursday after reading the Peterborough column in The Daily Telegraph is fanciful: or if not fanciful, extremely worrying. (Memo to Moscow: if you are planning a surprise attack on the West, don't worry if the KGB tells Sir Antony Duff, but for goodness sake keep your manoeuvres out of the gossip columns.)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is all about politics rather than security, and this is par for the course. We now realise that the Zircon raid on the BBC at 3 am on the Sabbath morning of 1 February was not about politics but about security.

Mr. Rees: I have said in public and I have told my hon. Friend to his face—he was in the House in the whole period I was in office — that he has been a damned nuisance, and I hope that he will continue to be a damned nuisance to Governments of whatever persuasion, because it is important that somebody ferrets and devils around in the way he does.
I am concerned, as was said in the Reith lectures last year by Lord McCluskey, that we are now moving from the Official Secrets Act. The Government have said that they will have a White Paper and will do something about it, but they are using civil injunctions. Lord McCluskey, in his sixth and final lecture, concluded his argument for keeping separate the functions of making the law and applying it. The Government are depending upon the judiciary stepping in to make decisions that for a long period could be taken only on the basis of the Official Secrets Act.
I say to the Leader of the House—I understand the sub judice aspect—that, at the appropriate time and quickly, it is important that the Law Officer and Home Secretary tell the country, through the House, why they are not using the Official Secrets Act. Much to my astonishment, I read in the Sunday Express—I shall refer to aspects of this in another place, not now—that Mr. Chapman Pincher said in effect that he was given approval for "Their Trade in Treachery" by officials of MI5. From all that has been said, not in the current case, in the courts over the past six months, the Cabinet Secretary did not


know this. No wonder that a prosecution was not undertaken, if approval were given by somebody or other who has been mentioned. The Government should soon make clear how they are operating, because I am concerned.

Mr. Michael Mates: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could help the Government. Did he know, at the time he agreed to be interviewed on the programme to which he referred, that a serving member of the security services would be on the programme? If he did know, did it concern him? When he was Home Secretary and responsible for those matters, would he have allowed a serving member of the security services for which he was responsible to go public on the air?

Mr. Rees: I did not know, and I do not know what my powers would have been in that respect, but the answer is no. However, I hope that I would not have had to wait until I had read the "Peterborough" column on the Thursday before the programme took place before stepping in.

Mr. Mates: The answer is no?

Mr. Rees: The answer is no, but I would not have waited to read it in the "Peterborough" column of The Daily Telegraph. As other hon. Members wish to speak, this is not the time to argue for a change to the accountability rule and other matters for which one has argued. The current position with newspapers and the BBC leaves me with a sense of censorship, which our forebears in the war years, let alone at any other time, would hardly credit. We are drifting into a Sargasso sea of media control.
I often ask myself what the media would have done — they grumble and complain very honourably—if a Labour Government had attempted to interfere with the BBC. We would have had much talk about eastern Europe. I have never had any time for that sort of organisation, which is a prostitution of what people have worked for over the years. I have to tell myself that this happens in Right-wing countries, and we are drifting in a direction I do not like. The Government should make a statement about the involvement of the D notice committee.
The Franks report is well worth reading, because it contains many facts. In our report, we wrote that the D notice system is administrative, which means that it is under the control of a Minister. It is an administrative system; it is not flying in the air by itself, doing what it likes. Something is wrong, and the Home Secretary and Attorney-General must report to the House.
I yield to no one in my concern for security; it is vital. We need secret services, but something has gone radically wrong. After having been listened to in far parts during the war years, always with the feeling that there was something right about it, the BBC now faces the Government moving in with injunctions to prevent reporting. There is something wrong; the Government must speak.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who, in his time, has done the state some service in security matters and so speaks with particular authority. Not for the first time I find myself in agreement

twith many of the themes that he struck. In particular, I agree with his concern about the drift, as he called it, of Government policy towards the extension of the civil law of confidentiality. This was once intended purely for commercial and business confidentiality, and is now being extended dramatically into an area that was thought to be covered only by the criminal law of official secrets.
We seem to be drifting in a curious and worrying direction. One could dismiss some of the drift as pure Gilbert and Sullivan farce. The Government A-team on legal and security issues, after turning "Spycatcher" into a world best-seller, making Peter Wright a millionaire and boosting the sales, royalties and revenues of Mr. Chapman Pincher, have graciously turned their mind to boosting the flagging audiences of Radio 4, for which I am sure it is grateful.
On a more serious note, the drift is going in a dangerous direction, in creating a perceived — not necessarily correct — entrenched enmity between the Government and the media. That a respected figure such as the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a Sargasso sea of censorship is an indication of the worries and fears of many respected journalists. One has only to look at the editorials in last Sunday's papers to see that the trend of Government operations is genuinely worrying and to see a breakdown of the old relationships. In particular, I mourn—it is mourning time—the apparent destruction of the D notice system, which has been undermined totally by the events surrounding the injunction issued against the radio programmes. That is a worrying trend, which can only damage not just relationships between this Government and the media, but the trust between all Governments and the media, upon which our system of government, to some extent, depends.
At the heart of the problem is the Government's new invention, their new Heath Robinson contraption—the doctrine of absolute lifelong confidentiality. I believe that the doctrine of absolute confidentiality, in common with the doctrine of absolute obedience, cannot be morally sustained in a free, democratic society. Although the obligation of confidentiality should, of course, be the basic rule for certain categories of Crown servants, there must, nevertheless, always be honourable exceptions to that basic rule in a democracy. One such exception — I am almost encouraged by the hissing noise that I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)—

Mr. Mates: I was drawing breath.

Mr. Aitken: Surely one such exception should be a Crown servant's right to speak out against serious criminality in his world. Suppose we were to have a Watergate in Britain? Are we to say that Crown servants should never speak out against such activities, on the grounds that they are bound by the obligation of absolute confidentiality? If we were to witness major, unauthorised, illegal crimes of the type carried out by the French secret service when it bombed the Greenpeace ship in New Zealand, are we to say that those who wish to protest against such behaviour are bound to silence by the obligation of absolute confidentiality? I think not, and I believe that society will say not. That is one area of categorisation of honourable exceptions to this new principle of absolute confidentiality that the Government


are seeking to introduce, almost by stealth, through the mouths of Queen's counsel rather than through the mouths of Ministers and legislation.

Mr. Dalyell: Surely the first person to break new ground was the Prime Minister, when, to the astonished dismay of a number of us — albeit a minority — she suddenly made a statement on the late Sir Roger Hollis and on Blunt. Was it not the right hon. Lady who in fact set this new trend and opened Pandora's Box?

Mr. Aitken: I believe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a valid point, to the extent that clearly there was an honourable exception to the old vow of absolute silence and confidentiality when the Prime Minister decided that it was in the national interest to have a more open approach to the issue of Blunt's treachery, which had been buried by successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers with the time-honoured formula, "We do not answer questions about the Security Service." I believe that that move by the Prime Minister, which I applauded at the time, would mean a new openness in the discussion of sensible, Security Service policy. —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Carry on, Mr. Aitken.

Mr. Aitken: I was dealing with the rights of free speech, and that discussion seemed to get somewhat extended. I believe that there should be some honourable exceptions to the new doctrine of absolute confidentiality.

Mr. Mates: I do not believe that there is any difference between the various nuances of argument regarding honourable exceptions. The issue on which my hon. Friend and myself have had friendly discussions and arguments before—no doubt we shall continue to do so — is the fact that what we must legislate for and the Government must act upon the dishonourable exceptions. It is with the dishonourable exceptions that we have been dealing. It is Ponting kvho has acted dishonourably; it is Wright who has acted dishonourably; and it is Cathy Massiter who has acted dishonourably. If any of them had had a genuine cause for complaint about what was being done there was a perfectly proper channel of communication through which to make that complaint. None of them chose to do it and that is why—

Mr. Roy Hughes: This is a speech. It is supposed to be an intervention.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide whether it is an intervention or a speech. I hope that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) will bring his intervention to a conclusion.

Mr. Mates: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will agree with me. The Government had to act last weekend, not because things were being done in an honourable way, but because they were being done in an improper way. Once that is allowed to happen, there is no way in which the rule can be enforced later.

Mr. Aitken: I believe that we are making some progress at least. We are now admitting, in the formidable voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East, that there can be some exceptions to the rule of lifelong

confidentiality on an absolute basis. I agree with my hon. Friend that the names he has mentioned—here we are at one—would fall into the category of a dishonourable breach of the rules. However, my hon. Friend and I—certainly the Treasury Bench and I—are unable to agree about the twilight, difficult area of what is an honourable or a dishonourable exception.
With due care for the rules of sub judice, I shall now turn to the recent injunction issued against the BBC. I believe that Crown servants, when retired, should be allowed to comment on certain, innocuous policy issues that have nothing to do with current national security or past operational matters. After all, the Central Intelligence Agency, Mossad and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, allow their former security servants to comment on basically innocuous matters.
One has only to consider what has taken place in this House in recent days to discover that the doctrine of absolute confidentiality is clearly not a seamless garment. This morning my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) was reported in The Independent—accurately, I am sure—as saying that the Conservative Back-Bench defence committee, in which he plays such an honourable and important role, wished to investigate certain aspects of the policy of the Security Service. Why not? That is a legitimate area of parliamentary concern.
A Back-Bench committee of the Conservative party should be allowed to invite a retired security official, Mr. Charles Elwell, to talk to it on a Wednesday afternoon. However, that invitation has suddenly been cancelled—I suggest, in something of a whiff of panic. If the doctrine of absolute confidentiality, as presented to the court by the Government's counsel, Mr. Robert Alexander, is a seamless garment, there cannot suddenly be a few holes for privileged people, such as Back Benchers. There is no difference between a retired security official coming to talk to a Back-Bench committee of the Conservative party about security policy and going on the radio to talk about the same issues.
At this stage, may I refer to the totally honourable conduct of one retired security official—his name has been mentioned in many newspapers and I see no reason why I should not name him—Mr. John Day. He is an honourable, discreet and circumspect retired official who would no more give away the secrets of his past than he would fly to the moon. He holds the view that the security services of this country need to be more accountable and that there is a need for the oversight of those services. He went on to the BBC programme to say just that and having said it, there was a flurry of excitement in Whitehall as a result of the "Peterborough" gossip column and the injunction was slapped on. I believe that the Government overreacted and overreached themselves by that action.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the remarks that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is making, but is he at all disturbed by the serious allegation of the lack of political impartiality on the part of MI5 officials —Wright and the official whom the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned—who then went on to work for Common Cause? Surely the purpose of any investigation into MI5 would be to bring out how far that organisation is as politically impartial as it should be.

Mr. Aitken: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is peddling some misinformation or disinformation, almost


like a double agent. Frankly, I believe that he has got the official confused, but let us not go into that now. Obviously, in the past political bias did occur in the security services in certain regrettable ways, and that is all the more reason for an accountable body or oversight body in the future.

Mr. Winnick: I was referring to Charles Elwell. I was certainly not referring to the other official, Mr. Day.

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful for that clarification.
Just as there used to be an old motto in journalism that comment is free but facts are sacred, so, in the world of accountability of the security services, comment is surely free on the radio or to Back-Bench committees. Perhaps the national security facts, past or present, are sacred, and should be kept so. That, I feel, is the principle on which we should fight, rather than the curious new principle of the doctrine of absolute confidentiality on a lifelong basis.
We cannot expect our Crown servants to be Trappist monks for ever. Indeed, they have not been in the past, as we see from memoirs of Ministers and retired officials, such as Sir William Stephenson or Sir Percy Sillitoe. I am worried that the Government will seek to introduce the doctrine of absolute confidentiality by legislation, perhaps because they have not exactly made good progress with it in the courts around the world, despite lavish expenditure of the taxpayer's money.
Let me end on this note. I said that the Government would introduce the doctrine by legislation, because I understand that they intend to vote down the admirable Bill to reform the Official Secrets Act, on the rather curious ground that it is being introduced by a Back Bencher — my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—so that they can introduce a more formidable and restrictive Bill that will include the doctrine of absolute confidentiality. Let me warn the House against that. We, as parliamentarians, would do better to support the line being drawn in the sensible area in which it has been drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. We should stand up for his Bill and vote and voice down the bogus new principle of absolute confidentiality.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I believe that his speech will be read widely and studied carefully, particularly his remarks about absolute confidentiality. He has done the House a service by giving such a clear-cut exposition of a case that I, along with many other hon. Members — including some on the Conservative Benches—strongly support.
I am tempted to follow both the hon. Gentleman's speech and that of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) by referring to the Government's recent action against the BBC. However, I do not wish to do that. I shall merely say that it is a serious question, which touches not only on the abuse of power by the Government, but on the individual freedom and independence of the BBC.
I believe that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) simply misunderstood the importance of the issue when he asked the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South whether he would have acted in that fashion. Of course any responsible Government who had reason to

believe that one of their servants was about to breach confidentiality and damage the security of the nation, would act along those lines. I hold no brief for secret service employees, present or past, who give away the nation's secrets. It is a case not of what has been done, but of the mechanism by which it has been done.
We know that the Government knew months ago about the programme and about the people who would take part. I understand that they also knew, in large measure, the points that those people would make. The question that we must ask is: why did the Government then wait to act until the last moment? In answer, I have been presented with the ludicrous proposition that they did so because they had read about the programme in the "Peterborough" column. Even if they had paid no attention to the questions that they had been asked previously, one might imagine that they knew what was going to happen, as the rest of us did, from the pre-release newspaper articles in the days before the programme—if not in the weeks and months before it, as they clearly did.
We are led to only one conclusion; that the Government did not take action until the last moment because they wished to do what they had done so often before, and play cat and mouse with the BBC. I do not believe that such action can be taken in isolation. It must be taken—as I believe the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested— in conjunction with the other actions that the Government have taken against the BBC; with the political appointments of some of the governors —and, some claim, of staff at a lower level—with their activities in the Zircon affair, and with the raids in Glasgow. The only possible conclusion is ghat the Government's action is part of a sustained and deliberate programme of intimidation against the BBC for political purposes. That is itself part of a sustained network of activities which attack the fundamental civil liberties of the people of Britain, as they have been attacked since the Government came into power in 1979.
However, the main point that I wish to raise does not relate to that important matter, although I realise that other hon. Members will wish to talk about it in greater detail; it relates, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) mentioned, to a constituency matter. We are discussing today whether the House should rise for the Christmas recess. When it does, we shall celebrate an occasion when a young family failed to find accommodation, but those circumstances produced an entirely happy result. However, in my constituency today—as in other constituencies up and down the country — literally hundreds of young families and others cannot find accommodation. The housing crisis in many of our constituencies is reaching catastrophic proportions.
I have been running regular weekly surgeries in my constituency for the past 10 years since long before I was elected — and, in common with many other hon. Members, I see about 1,000 individual cases each year. Eight out of every 10 people who now come to my surgeries come with a housing problem. They are not trivial housing problems, but serious problems relating to the maintenance of houses or, indeed, to homelessness.
Those people come to see me not because they have no councillors to do the job effectively—they have usually already been to see their local councillors—but out of desperation and, unhappily, in the mistaken belief that I can do something about their problem. But I can do no more than has been done previously.
On my list of cases at present are young couples, many of them living apart and some with children. There are single homeless people with no hope of housing in the foreseeable future under the present conditions in my constituency and elsewhere. In the past year, and more recently, I have found young people sleeping on rubbish tips, because there is nowhere else for them to sleep. Some sleep under the stairs of the local supermarkets. That is happening not in an inner-city constituency, but in a rural and, many believe, prosperous part of the nation.
One 84-year-old women—now alone, as her husband died recently — is living in a four-bedroomed house, which I fear she will be unable to heat or look after, with a garden that she cannot conceivably tend. However, she has to stay, because there is nowhere for her to move to.
We have long been concerned about such problems in inner cities. However, it now affects areas such as my own. On Department of the Environment figures, South Somerset district council has the tenth highest number of housing inquiries of any authority in Britain, including the metropolitan authorities. We have a waiting list of 3,742. It has risen by 1,400 in the past year—by 50 per cent. If that problem were to increase, not mathematically or exponentially, but simply by 1,400 in every succeeding year —and I suspect that it will increase faster than that—by the turn of the century 20,000 people would be on the waiting list. That is one in three of my constituents. Transfers from one house to another, often for strong medical reasons — for instance, an old person who cannot climb the stairs to get to a lavatory or the first floor —are impossible. There is no prospect of such people receiving better housing that is more conducive to their health.
The maintenance of houses, in my constituency and others, I am certain, has fallen to a level where it is practically non-existent. My district council calculates that we would have needed to refurbish 250 houses last year even to make a stab at keeping pace with the level of repairs and refurbishment. Of that number, 22 houses were in fact refurbished. So the stock is diminishing in quality. The number of desperately needed repairs is rising to match the increasing misery and desperation of the families who have to live in inadequate, often leaky, housing. By any standards, that continuing rise represents a desperate situation for a growing number of people.
The really scandalous thing, however, is that it does not have to happen. The South Somerset district council has the money to put it right. We have £13 million in the bank. It does not belong to the Government or to the council. Technically, it belongs to the tenants of South Somerset district council. This £13 million has accumulated year after year at a rate of about £1 million a year. The district council can spend only a tiny proportion of it. We would like the freedom to spend that money to build new houses, to house our homeless, to repair the houses that we have, to provide more jobs in our community and to provide greater prosperity. Yet the Government say that, despite the rising tide of misery, we cannot spend a penny of the sum currently available.
In my constituency, as elsewhere, ten council houses require to be sold before sufficient money is accumulated to build one, as a result, first, of the discounts—which I do not argue with — and, secondly, of the capital restrictions. Last year 350 council houses were sold, but

the council was able to build rather fewer than 30 in all to cope with a housing list which is now well on the way to 4,000.
The situation is ludicrous. The money is there but it cannot be used. The problem of homelessness could be tackled immediately; jobs could be created and prosperity increased in the-process. I am certain that the sum of human misery in my constituency and in most other rural constituencies created by homelessness and housing problems is greater by far than that created by unemployment. In rural areas the matter is considerably worse than most people imagine. In most of the small villages in south Somerset it is impossible for a young married couple to purchase a house, because all the houses are being bought up at increasing prices. The average house now costs about £100,000, and a terrace dwelling £60,000 or £80,000. There is no prospect of local first-time buyers getting them because they are being snapped up by people from the south-east and by an increasing number of elderly people who retire to rural areas.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of what he has said about the number of council houses that have to be sold before a new one can be built, with the restrictions that the Government have imposed? The fact is that this problem is countrywide. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is immoral that council houses should be sold at all before the need for public sector rented housing has been satisfied?

Mr. Ashdown: No, I do not. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the problem is by no means unique. I hope that, as I draw the attention of the House to it, other hon. Members will recognise that a great deal of this applies to their own constituencies as well. My view on the sale of council houses is that people should be given the right to buy them, but that the decision whether to sell should lie with the local council, which is in a position to judge on the advisability of selling as against the need to solve the problem of homelessness. While I do not deny the right to purchase, I think it is a matter that ought to be considered locally in the context of homelessness. If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, I will go that far with him.
I do not want the House to imagine for one second that the situation in my constituency arises because of a behind-the-times local authority which refuses to think about the future, because that is not true. South Somerset district council has been among the most imaginative in the land in constructing new initiatives to build houses. It has set the tone and, in many cases, blazed a trail which others have followed. Those initiatives include, for instance, new starter units—eight units were available and there were 95 applications from first-time buyers—shared ownership, private sector funding, getting together with parish councils to build on parish council land with shared public-private funding, initiatives launched with the Duchy of Cornwall, barter schemes, housing association schemes, the setting up of a single homeless hostels, a housing advice centre, and so on. The council has been really imaginative in finding new sources of funds and ways of meeting the housing problem.
However, what it has been able to do is but a drop in the ocean compared with the scale of the problem. I cannot describe adequately to the House the sense of anger,


frustration, misery and despair which now afflicts those people on the housing list: they desperately need rehousing but they have not the slightest prospect of having that need met in the near future. The despair extends to those who are seeking to assist, to the district council officers, to the district councillors wanting to help with the problem on a catch-as-catch-can basis and, when I see the interminable troop of people coming into my surgeries and asking for assistance that I cannot provide because of the Government's closed mind on this issue, even to me.
The housing crisis in Britain is now reaching epidemic proportions and the Government's dereliction of duty in seeking to block the use of funds that are readily available to cope with the problem is a moral and practical scandal. I beg the Government to do something about it. I do not ask them for their money; I ask them to let us use ours. I do not ask them for their help; I ask them to let us help ourselves. I do not ask them to house our homeless, but to let us tackle the problem of homelessness with the resources available to us. I ask them to recognise that their policy blocks the use of this money. If they do nothing, the responsibility for the problem lies on their head and in their hands. The stain of homelessness and misery caused by their neglect will be a blot upon their record and, I hope especially at this time of the year, on their conscience also.

Mr. John Stokes: I am disappointed that, apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), almost the entire debate has been about what I would call an unhealthy obsession with the security services, the media, the BBC and so on. Like many of our generation, my wife and I served throughout the war, for most of the time in highly secret work. Neither of us has mentioned a word about it, either to the media or in private. That is how we were brought up.
The second mistake that is made is that somehow some hon. Members, with some connection with the media—newspapers or broadcasting — or out of a desire for excessive publicity, think that this matter is of supreme importance, dominating everything else before we go for our Christmas holidays. I beg to differ. Of my 80,000 constituents, whom I have had the honour to serve for 17½. years, not one has mentioned this matter to me once, in pubs, in factories, in shops or anywhere else. Nor have I received a single letter about it. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches to cool it a little and put more realism into their thoughts.
The House should not go into the Christmas recess until we have debated something rather more fundamental —the strength, unity and cohesion of this nation. We have a great deal to be thankful for in living in the British Isles, and we should never forget it. To judge from the proceedings of the House and from the news media—particularly the television news and the popular press—one would think that the nation was in a constant state of turmoil. Yet we who are in close touch with our constituents know that that is not so. Proceedings in this place are necessarily adversarial—that is the basis of our system with Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition —but that does not mean that there is not a

broad measure of agreement between the Government and the Opposition on wide aspects of our national life. In saying that, I exclude the extreme Left.
I regret the growing level of noise in the Chamber, such as we heard this afternoon. It does us great harm, it is disliked intensely by the public and the sooner it stops the better. I fear that broadcasting started the rot, which is why I utterly oppose the televising of our proceedings.
To make money, the media must stir things up. They do not want to give out good news. They want to give out bad news and keep us glued to the television screen or tempt us to buy the next newspaper to discover what ghastly horror has occurred. We know that ordinary life is not full of horror, violence, crime or the sorts of skulduggery that we hear about so often from the media. I know that in certain parts of the country there is crime, violence and drug taking, and that in some of the inner cities sad things are happening, but I hope and believe that we will tackle those problems. One must maintain a sense of proportion and realise how fortunate we are to be living in these islands and not behind the iron curtain or in some other ghastly country.
There is a disposition among television people and radio producers to make programmes where every kind of social, political or moral problem is examined, dissected and torn to pieces, and having listened to them we have some new worry to think about. Even the best and greatest of our institutions, the monarchy, is put under the microscope. Some time ago I took part in two separate television broadcasts about the monarchy and the House of Lords. Fortunately, there was a large representative audience of the mass of the people. Their reaction was perfectly sound. They were not brainwashed and they had the highest opinion of the monarchy and of the House of Lords, and so do I.
Our institutions are the backbone of our national life. They are extremely popular and should never be taken for granted. For instance, last summer there was enormous interest in the state opening of Parliament, which was broadcast to hundreds of countries throughout the world. There is nothing that I like more than taking constituents round the House and telling them about the numbers of foreigners who come here and envy our ways and wish that they had them.
All these matters are very dear to us, and our traditions, history, ceremonies and pageantry are loved by ordinary people, who feel that great state occasions express the real cohesion of the British people. The only objectors are rootless intellectuals who have no knowledge of real life, and some of them come from a university that is not too far from where I live.
We have much going for us in these islands, which we should not forget. At heart we are still mainly a Christian nation, and Christian mercy and compassion still flavour our lives, even if rather fewer people go to church and the Church of England is not quite what it was. We love freedom and order and everyone living under the law. England is a peaceful nation and it is hard to stir up a revolution or riot. I saw my constituents relaxing in the evenings during the election and realised what an amicable and agreeable people we are.
By contrast, I frequently go abroad, particularly to France, which is a country that I know well and have been involved with for many years since the last war. What a contrast there is there. Under the apparent calm of a highly centralised form of government there is always the danger,


particularly in Paris and its outskirts, that people will suddenly become wildly excited, pick up the cobblestones and demand that certain politicians be hanged from a lamp post. We do not do that here. Perhaps the sometimes noisy and angry scenes that we have in the Chamber are a safety valve to save us from street corner agitators and incitement to riot. We have some new Members of Parliament, and some of them are fairly new to our English heritage, customs and traditions of life. If they want to make their influence felt, the best way to do so is to conform to our practices, and I am sure that they will then be heard with respect.
There is much talk among the chattering classes of the divide between north and south. Such talk is not true and can be harmful to essential unity and cohesion of the nation. I travel a great deal and find the same outlook among people, whether they be in Devon, Durham, Herefordshire, Suffolk, Cumberland or Kent. I find the same sense of Englishness, patriotism, charity and tolerance.
The comparison in wealth is most misleading. Not all northerners or Scotsmen are poor, and not all southerners are rich. We in the west midlands, part of which I represent, suffered grievously in the world slump from 1979 to 1983. My constituents never complained and never wanted or expected taxpayers' money in the form of handouts or subsidies. I am glad to say that prosperity is returning, and I rejoice to see it.
We are a quiet and undemonstrative people. We do not wear our hearts on our sleeves, but our patriotism goes very deep, as was demonstrated to a remarkable degree during the Falklands war. For all our failings and difficulties we are still a great nation, enormously respected abroad, as is our Prime Minister, and all of us share a common history and heritage of which we are rightly proud. Our Government will make great efforts to improve affairs in the inner cities, and I shall lend my energies to that in so far as I can.
I wish that the Opposition would not try so much to run down everything in Britain. From time to time they even criticise the armed forces, which are the best in the world and set an example in leadership, organisation, training, morale and dedication to careers that is the envy of many of our trades and professions. The Opposition even criticise the judges and police, but how lucky we are to have such a respected and independent judiciary and a police force that is among the best in the world. I hope that some Opposition Members will realise how lucky we are not to live in some of the iron curtain countries.
I glory in being, and am proud to have been born, an Englishman. The country is facing much better times and probably unparalleled prosperity. Let us all be thankful for that and live our lives accordingly.
I shall end with a warning. In spite of the recent falls on the stock exchange, most people in Britain have never been as prosperous as they are this Christmas. That is all very fine, but that prosperity brings its own dangers. I have noticed, for instance, as may other hon. Members, the growth of a certain arrogance and brutishness, whether it be among British holidaymakers in Spain, on the football field, in the boxing ring or even driving along the motorways. The old influence of parson and squire has gone and nothing has taken its place. There is no longer any deference to anyone or anything, or even any respect.
This world is now so good for so many people that they no longer feel the need to bother about the next. Clergy, parents and teachers are reluctant to proclaim moral standards. However, a new prosperity, widely spread among all classes, must bring with it a greater sense of responsibility, or we shall be in danger of becoming a nasty and unpleasant nation. That is something which the Government and my party should heed.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have listened to the usual robust contribution of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) but I must say that having listened to him, I would simply hate to be English.
Before we adjourn for Christmas, I would like some clarity on a statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 21 October when he announced the appointment of a group of consultants comprising G. Maunsell and Partners and W. S. Atkin and Partners, to develop a scheme for a second Severn crossing. There was general welcome for that announcement, but there has been a slight difference of emphasis between the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office. For example, on 3 February the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said:
we wish to be in a position to provide the second Severn crossing by the mid-1990s if traffic growth warrants it by then and Parliament so decides." —[Official Report, 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 569.]
There is a certain note of hesitancy there. On 2 March 1986, the then Secretary of State for Wales Mr. Nicholas Edwards, now created Lord Crickhowell, said:
We are working to a timetable that will meet our firm intention to be in a position to provide the second Severn crossing in the mid-1990s". —[Official Report, 2 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 607.]
Yet, more recently, the Secretary of State for Transport said on 21 October:
We are determined to stay on course to provide their crossing by the mid-1990s if the needs likely to develop by then materialise.
I want to ask why there is doubt about the project.
In the first year after the bridge opened, in 1966, the daily flow of traffic averaged 15,600 vehicles. By 1982, the figure had risen to 33,300—more than double. In 1985, it had risen to 36,100 and in the early part of 1987 it was averaging 40,000 a day. The latest Department of Transport forecasts say that with low growth in the economy, by 1995 there would be a daily flow of 45,600. With high growth it would be 50,400. The free-flow design capacity of the existing bridge is 54,000 vehicles per day. If the growth rate for the 1980s is maintained, the capacity will probably be exceeded by about 1993.
Back in October 1983, I first revealed to the House the contents of a hitherto secret report on the superstructure of the bridge by the eminent consulting engineers Mott Hay and Anderson, which certainly gave cause for concern. Subsequently, £40 million was authorised for various repairs and maintenance work. That work is proceeding now.
However, an important question arises. What if the free-flow design capacity is exceeded by 1993? An important safety factor may emerge. Would there be further restrictions on the number of vehicles using the bridge, and what effect would such restrictions have on the Welsh economy, which heaven knows is depressed enough at present? Practical experience already tells us that at


peak times or when the carriageways are closed for maintenance, there are lengthy queues. It is apparent that the project to build a second Severn crossing needs to be speeded up. I have long felt that the Department of Transport has insufficient realisation or understanding of the importance of the Severn crossing to the economy of Wales. I feel that the existing bridge and the building of a second crossing should be handed over to the Welsh Office, which I feel would put more impetus behind it.
My second point relates to finance. The existing bridge was opened in September 1966 and was built at a cost of £8 million. The outstanding debt has now risen to £57·6 million and is forecast to double by 1993. The tolls collected are not meeting the operating and maintenance costs, let alone contributing to paying off any of the rapidly accumulated debt. We know that the Government chose to ignore the findings of the Select Committee on Transport, which in March 1986 recommended that
tolls should not be imposed on any major estuarial crossing which forms part of the motorway or trunk road system".
The Committee pointed out that it would cost the Government very little to write off the outstanding debt, as all the debt on the Severn bridge is already owed to the Government. The only additional cost would be the loss of interest. In recent years, the Severn bridge has not been able to make any such payments.
This matter is becoming urgent, because decisions will soon have to be taken about the method of financing the second crossing. In February 1987, the company Trafalgar House proposed a privatisation scheme including taking over the existing bridge. Under that scheme, there would be tolls for 30 years. It was turned down by the then Secretary of State for Wales. Nevertheless, the Government have made it plain that they are considering what has become known as a Dartford-style funding operation.
Certain rather important developments are taking place in other parts of the country at present. For instance, it has long been recognised that the Government have got themselves into an impossible position in regard to the Humber bridge. The debt is now about £300 million and is rising rapidly. The Department of Transport has at last been galvanised into action. It has agreed to write off £190 million of the debt with the proviso that the tolls have to be increased. We now find that the Mersey tunnel authorities are appealing for similar assistance and I understand that special assistance has been promised for the escalating financial problems of the Erskine bridge in Scotland. The Select Committee on Transport stated:
If the Government can acknowledge the difficulties of the Humber Bridge we believe it should also be prepared to acknowledge that problems are faced by other crossings".
What about Wales? Even by the Government's doctored statistics we already have 148,000 people out of work. That is 12·3 per cent. of our population. Of course, there is much hidden unemployment as well. According to the Government's own submission to the European Economic Community 12 months ago, Wales has the lowest rate of economic activity in the whole of Britain. What is more, we have a Government committed to reducing tariff barriers between countries in the EEC. However, at the same time, the Government continue to insist on collecting a toll from those who wish to pass between England and Wales.
We know that the Chancellor has the money to remedy matters. The Secretary of State for Wales is alleged to be

high in the pecking order at the Cabinet table. This is an opportune time for him to display some red dragon qualities and get some action on the Severn crossing, which is so important to Wales and on which I have tried to focus the attention of the House before it adjourns for Christmas.

Mr. William Powell: Our Adjournment debates always have considerable charm. Not least. we had the opportunity to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who spoke with customary elegance and style, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who gave us a wonderful philippic on England today. My hon. Friend usually tempts me to digress into matters concerning our national Church and so on. This evening I shall resist that temptation and concentrate instead on two matters on which the House should have an opportunity to reflect before we adjourn for Christmas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge commented on the influence of the media in our society. There is much talk in the media about whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to frame his Budget proposals in the early spring, should concentrate on increasing Government expenditure or on reducing income tax. I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to something which ought to be articulated much more often in this House.
I have the honour to represent tens of thousands of people who cannot be considered affluent by any stretch of the imagination. When I was first elected to represent it in this House, my constituency was suffering high unemployment. The House will be pleased to learn that thousands of those who were out of work then are now in work and can enjoy increasing family prosperity. However, no one should imagine for one moment that they have yet attained any degree of affluence. Many of my constituents' wives work to boost the family income while wishing that that was not necessary.
The tax that those thousands and thousands of people pay is far to high. People earning £140 a week, which is not a princely wage, are having to pay £40 a week, or perhaps slightly more, in income tax and national insurance contributions. That leaves them with £100 a week or even slightly less. No one can say that they have achieved affluence. They live on the margins. They are slightly less on the margins than they were one, two or three years ago and I hope that that trend will develop and become entrenched. However, it is vital to those who enjoy only a modest income that their tax burden should be reduced, and that includes their income tax burden.
One often hears from people with very much higher incomes that they do not mind paying the amount of tax that they pay at present or even more, but no one should be deceived into imagining that they speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. Those of my constituents on modest incomes do not have the ready access to the media enjoyed by many with a more affluent standard of living. I say with all the power that I can that it is essential that direct tax rates be reduced—not just the standard rates but the thresholds. By reducing them we can do a little to make life easier for those who live on the margin.
My second point is entirely different but it too may interest my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport today announced the Christmas campaign to discourage people from drinking and driving, and good luck to that campaign. There is no doubt that we need continual publicity about the evils that accompany the combination of the consumption of alcohol with the driving of motor vehicles. However, I must say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and through him to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and all members of the Government—that there is a limit to the success that such campaigns can have. The time has come for us to reexamine the law to see whether more cannot be done.
It is a frightening fact that one third of the accidents occurring on our roads are a direct consequence of the over-consumption of alcohol. The innocent usually pay the price; the arbitrary nature of the destruction means that it often afflicts the innocent more than those whose over-indulgence has caused the tragedy in the first place. The cost to the victims' families is vast, but the cost is also paid by the nation as a whole. Many people have to stay in hospital, often for a long time, as a direct consequence of alcohol-induced accidents, which account for much of the slaughter on our roads.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider a number of points carefully for the future. The existing law under the Road Traffic Act 1972 provides that a constable may demand a specimen of breath in any one of three circumstances: first, if there has been an accident; secondly, if there has been a moving traffic offence; thirdly —this is the crucial point—if he has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has been drinking. The House will know that the courts have held that reasonable cause need not arise until after the driver has finished driving. If that is not random breath-testing, I do not know what is.
Instead of pussyfooting around the question whether random breath-testing is legal or desirable, it is about time that chief constables made it perfectly plain that they have that power. The power should be advertised much more widely than at present. I can guarantee that our constituents do not appreciate the extent of a police officer's powers that he is entitled to breathalyse them after they have finished driving if he is satisfied that they have been drinking. We must publicise that fact to the nation as a whole.
I come to the legal framework in which these matters are dealt with. Somebody convicted of a drink-driving offence is disqualified for at least one year, but his licence is not removed from him until he is convicted. Sometimes there is a substantial gap between arrest and charging, and the occasion when the matter comes before a court. I should like to see the Road Traffic Act amended so that at the point of charging, a person's licence is suspended but that he should have the power to go to a judge to ask that that suspension be lifted before his conviction if he can give good reasons. That would stop a number of people who undoubtedly use the delay in our court system to avoid facing reality.
Let me take that one step further; here I come to a much more drastic area of law reform. So serious and damaging are the effects of people who drive with alcohol in their blood that the time has now come for Parliament

to revise the penalty that suspension be for only a year, and make it a life suspension. People who drink and drive should know beforehand that they will lose their licence for ever. If that message could be got over, the likelihood of people taking a chance would be greatly reduced.
One further change in the law and practice needs to be seriously considered. We are all paying a huge price for medical treatment and so on, as a result of alcohol-induced accidents. The insurance companies should now be asked to foot the bill in full for the consequences. Therefore, they should be allowed to write into their insurance policies the provision that insurance will not follow if somebody has been drinking and driving. Therefore, people who drink and drive would know that not only do they face a life suspension of their licence, but also that they would not be insured and would be liable for the consequences. Those twin effects would dramatically concentrate the mind and bring home to people that they must not continue in the way in which they have been.
It is all very well trying to discourage people from drinking and driving by the enforcement of the criminal law. That, together with publicity and advertising the bad effects, has been the path pursued so far. But the time has now come for a heavy investment in research to produce a device which would physically stop somebody who had been drinking from driving. Such a device, using a microchip or whatever, could cut out the ignition if somebody had a level of alcohol in their blood which was above the limit.
There is no doubt that some American car companies are experimenting in that area and, increasingly, many people think that such a device is a practicality. If it could be achieved, it would be impossible for anybody to drink and drive, and that would be the best result of all. It would cut out all the accidents that are a consequence of drinking and driving.
The time has now come for the Government to take a lead by sponsoring such research and ensuring that it is brought to fruition. Where there's a will there's a way. Such research would not need a significant amount of investment, but rather a concentration of resources over a particular period. If such a device could be found, it would rapidly become compulsory for all cars, not just in Britain but across the world. The patent fees that could be earned by the inventor of such a device would be just as dramatic as those earned by the inventor of cats' eyes and other road safety devices which we now take for granted.
At this time, when we know that the Christmas season will be ruined for a number of families as a result of irresponsibility with alcohol and driving, the Government should go a step further than they have been prepared to go up till now, and take the steps which, all being well, if pursued relentlessly and with determination, would eliminate the prospect of people being able to drink and drive. If that were to happen, the benefit to our fellow countrymen and people elsewhere would be far greater than anything achieved by most of the measures that come before the House of Commons.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has made a fairly controversial speech, not least in respect of drinking and driving. I drive, but I do not drink, and I would take issue with him on his proposal to remove insurance cover for those found guilty of drinking and driving. I fear that such


a measure would mean that the burden would fall upon the injured party rather than upon those who inflicted the injury. Not everyone who drives a car is wealthy enough to meet the bills that would inevitably flow from the loss of insurance cover.
The hon. Gentleman talked about reducing tax and taking people out of tax, but I am sorry that he did not go on to say that taking a large number of the lower paid out of tax would mean that for the Treasury to raise the same tax revenue there would have to be fairly considerable chopping and changing with the bands at the upper tax levels and the wealthier sections of the community might not like that. However, that is an issue that the Treasury is there to resolve and we have to support or oppose as the case may be when the Budget rolls around.
However, I did not come here to talk about tax or drinking and driving, but to raise the question of extradition, especially extradition from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland. That is a matter of considerable importance at the moment which should be explored before we depart to our homes for a happy Christmas—which, of course, will not be very happy in the Province, one part of which I have the honour to represent.
A Bill has just been passed by the Dail Eireann in the Irish Republic, which had as its background the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. When the definition of terrorism was being decided on by those who drew up the Bill they seem to have had some difficulty, and, having looked at it, I am not impressed with some of the things in it.
For instance, it lays down that one of the terrorist acts shall be an offence involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm or letter or petrol bomb if their use endangers persons. I am only a layman with no legal training, but if an IRA man or some other terrorist in Ulster or elsewhere blows somebody's brains out using an automatic pistol, he can be found guilty of a terrorist offence, whereas if he uses a plain old-fashioned bolt-action rifle, shotgun or revolver he cannot. It is nonsense that that should be written into such legislation.
Only a narrow range of offences can be treated as terrorist offences for the purpose of extradition where an individual would not be allowed to claim political immunity. Although the scope is widened in article 2 of the convention, it could be narrowed again by the application of article 13. It might be worth the time of those hon. Members who have not read the convention to dig it out and have a look at it.
Despite the difficulties caused by the narrow wording, the Irish Republic has certain difficulties itself because it did not vote for the convention. In fact, it abstained. The Government of that day were obviously aware of the difficulties that it was bound to cause them in succeeding years.
In general, there is no difficulty about extradition from any part of the United Kingdom to the Irish Republic, or vice versa, for an ordinary criminal offence. Most cases go straight through. Apparently, a record is not kept in Scotland, but very few people have been extradited to Scotland. Indeed, only one person has been extradited to Scotland for terrorist activities in the past few years. In all cases, extradition was apparently granted.
However, whenever we come to the question as it relates to England and Wales, there are a surprising number of requests for extradition. Between 1982 and

1986, there were 136, of which 49 were granted, 85 were not acted upon for one reason or another—apparently, in some cases, because the individual was imprisoned in the Republic—and two requests were refused. One was refused because of a technicality, which seems a favoured device for refusing extradition. The other was the famous Glenholmes, the lady who managed to get out of the court and go trotting down the street.
In general, there is no difficulty about the ordinary criminal. The difficulty occurs when one considers crimes that could be described as having a political content. It was evident from the answers given last week by the Prime Minister, on Tuesday and on Thursday, to myself, that she was well aware that the new law is not very good when it comes to extraditing dangerous and wicked men to justice from the Irish Republic. I am sure that some hon. Members will have read my question to the Prime Minister. Indeed, some may have heard me ask it, although at the time it was difficult to hear what was said. I asked the Prime Minister why the Government of the Irish Republic had created such a weapon if they did not intend to use it.
The history of extradition from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom for terrorist offences has been difficult. When Dominic McGlinchey, a dangerous and wicked man, was extradited, everybody thought that the whole defence of political offence had been uprooted, demolished and completely removed. However, later cases did not uphold that point of view. In, for example, the Shannon case, one of the justices held that an offence could be political even if it went beyond reasonable political activity. At the same hearing, another justice held that political immunity depended on the motivation of the individual who was being extradited, the identity of the victim and the true nature of the offence. All those points were to be assessed by their closeness to the alleged political objective.
That seems a fairly solid clawback to the position that existed before the McGlinchey case. One is sometimes left wondering if McGlinchey would have been extradited had he not become so infamous and brutally well known throughout the United Kingdom that he was an embarrassment to all concerned. Similarly, one wonders whether the most recent character, the so-called "'border fox," would have been sought so assiduously had he not become so brutally and wickedly famous. Hon. Members will be able to appreciate from my comments that I view such things with a jaundiced eye.
Some people think that this country is incapable of holding a fair trial. The Incorporated Law Society arranged in Dublin recently a meeting which, according to The Irish Times, was attended by more than 400 people. One individual is reported as saying that the Act was
inappropriate to exist between two sovereign states … it would operate at a time when there were serious reservations about the justice given to Irish people in British courts.
He is also reported as saying that
there was a widespread feeling in this country, and to a considerable degree in Britain, that many trials of Irish people in Britain were not far removed from show trials, with a predictable result.
I could quote a great deal more, but those hon. Members who are interested will find a full report in The Irish Times of 2 December. Many English hon. Members should read it. Perhaps I transgress, but that was all part of the general


hype in the news media in the Irish Republic about the present trial of the so-called "Birmingham Six". We should not lightly forget that matter at present.
I turn now to the limitations of the new extradition law in the Republic. The Attorney-General of the Republic is appointed by the Prime Minister of the Republic and must be satisfied by the production of evidence that there is a case to be answered. I believe that, under Irish law, that means that a full book of evidence must be available. Often some of the evidence that might be needed would be available only after the police had questioned the people concerned. That requirement will apply only to British requests for extradition.
The person extradited will not be subject to intensive questioning after extradition. Therefore, the police will have no possibility of extracting further information from them. The person extradited will not have to face charges other than those that are specified on the warrant. The extradition warrant may be refused because of a lapse of time if it would be unjust, invidious or oppressive to allow the case to go ahead. If anyone believed that it would be unjust to allow the case to go ahead, no doubt a perfectly good reason could be found for refusing the warrant.
It is well known that many people in the Irish Republic are guilty of many murders, extending far back, even to beyond the time when the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Some of those people are known to me and many of the victims were personally known to me. Refusing a warrant because of the time that had elapsed would mean that many of those people would be beyond the reach of the United Kingdom courts for ever. That is unacceptable to those who have suffered, and this country should not be asked to accept it. Murderers of soldiers, policemen and civilians, and people who have escaped from prison while awaiting trial — I think of one individual especially— can now escape justice simply because their crimes happened a long time ago.

Mr. Barry Porter: Have there not been recent exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in which the Taoiseach has given various undertakings that the extradition treaty will not cause any trouble? From his contacts on that side of the water, has the hon. Gentleman any ideas about what those difficulties might be and the way in which they might be overcome?

Mr. Ross: That is the great difficulty. The suppression of terrorism convention was passed by the Dail a year ago. It lasted throughout the year until the present extradition measures passed through the Dail. We have now been told that there will be a further review in another year's time. I do not know what that means to the lawyers or legislators in the Irish Republic, but to me it is simply a foot-dragging and time-wasting exercise all the way down the line. I fear the worst, because ultimately, with the conditions that are written into the treaty, it is for the Government of the Irish Republic to exert or relax pressure as to whether individuals should be extradited.
That is what lay behind the latter part of my question to the Prime Minister last Thursday. I said that she should reflect that that power would not be created by the Irish Government if they did not have the intention of using it.
The Prime Minister made it plain on that occasion, as she had done earlier, that she saw the changes as a step backwards that would make extradition more difficult.
I go further than that. I believe that the treaty makes extradition impossible unless we pay a constitutional price and the price of interference with the judiciary in this country. We are not and should not be prepared to pay that price. The plain truth is that, in the Irish Republic, the judges take an oath to uphold the constitution and the institutions of that state. I applaud that because it is fair, reasonable and correct that the judiciary of any state should take such an oath. The idea that, in some way or another, we can get a judge from the Irish Republic to sit in a British court when that same Irish judge, because of his support for the constitution, must support the concept of a 32-county Irish Republic, is quite mad. It should never be allowed to come to pass and should not, in any circumstances, be considered reasonable.
We in this House or in the country should not admit to anyone that individuals who appear before our courts are incapable of getting a free and fair trial. If we admit that in respect of citizens of a foreign nation, it will not be long before exactly the same charges are levelled against trials of our citizens within other boundaries. For that reason alone, we should resist it.
The whole thrust of the Republican argument is that the only answer to terrorism in Ireland is to create a 32-county Irish Republic. There is no doubt that that is a large part of the arguments about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, and so on. If right hon. and hon. Members refer to The Irish Times of 20 November, they will see a report of an EEC debate on the bombing in Enniskillen. According to the article, one speaker, Mr. T. J. Mahler, said that
it was not sufficient to condemn the violence of the IRA 'as this was attacking the symptoms and not the cause'.
To him, the cause is the fact that Northern Ireland is part of this nation, rather than part of the Irish Republic. The article went on to state:
He urged strong support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement to ensure the unification of Ireland takes place in a peaceful way.
He thereby revealed the reason he supports it.
As a result of what we have seen in the past two years, the Government's hopes in respect of the agreement are in shreds. It was hoped that the claim to Northern Ireland would be dropped. That did not happen. There has been no improvement in respect of extradition. In fact, it has got a great deal worse. Above all, there has been no improvement in security. The captured shipments of arms demonstrate to any reasonable and unbiased observer that terrorism and terrorist strength in Northern Ireland as a whole are far worse than when this Administration came to office.
We need to look seriously not only at extradition but at the whole thrust of the policy that the House has supported for nigh on 20 years. That policy brought about the events at Enniskillen. The matter went deep to the hearts of people in this country because the folk of England, Scotland and Wales were doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. If it had been another parade, I doubt whether there would have been the same outcry from the Prime Minister at a service of remembrance. Let us remember that, on that same day,


there was an attempt to murder 80 children. That attempt was carried through to the extent of pushing the button, but it did not come off.
These are serious matters. They have not received the attention, time or questioning in the House that they deserve. It is wrong for us to go away for our Christmas holiday s without considering them even briefly this evening.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the House that many hon. Members still wish to speak in the debate. It must end at 8.8 pm. Front-Bench speakers will need time to wind up the debate. I appeal to both sides of the House for briefer contributions.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I shall follow your wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take up where the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) left off, except to say that Dublin politicians' hostility for the British is almost inexplicable. More people who were born in the Irish Republic live in the United Kingdom than in the Irish Republic. When they come to England, they find an atmosphere of toleration. I follow what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said. One admires the British sense of toleration. Many things about the English anger me. I am sure that the Scots and the Welsh have much the same things to say about the English, but there is a sense of toleration. I have never understood why people from the Irish Republic, who enjoy the benefits of living in this country, have not persuaded the people at home to change their attitudes toward this country. I shall not pursue that matter, much as I would like to do so.
The matter I raise relates to an individual. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to protect individual rights and also deal with great national and international topics. I refer to a constituent, Mr. Jonathan Carson, who is 23 years of age. He has suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. He was and still is a student at the university of Liverpool. He applied to the Northern Ireland Department of Education for a grant to pursue further education to achieve his master of philosophy degree at that university, but his application was turned down by the Stormont Department because he did not obtain a degree by examination. On the face of it, that seems reasonable if one has to accept the regulations. There is much in the regulations with which I disagree. There is reason for my outrage. In the short time available to me, I hope to be able to show hon. Members and the Leader of the House how a grave injustice has been done to Mr. Jonathan Carson. I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for the Government to change their mind.
Jonathan Carson enrolled as a student in the department of French at Liverpool university. All in his department speak of his hard work and dedication to his studies. He was due to sit his degree examination in the summer term of this year. Before sitting that examination, in the first week of the summer term he went to his local hospital to give blood. The immediate floating test suggested that he might be anaemic. That suspicion was confirmed by subsequent tests that were carried out. As a result, he had further blood tests at the Royal hospital in

Liverpool and a bone marrow test, all of which indicated that he had acute lymphoblastic leukaemia—a serious state. He was immediately admitted to hospital on 19 May. His condition was treated as serious and his chances of success were not regarded as too high at that time.
He stayed in hospital, and received chemotherapy treatment, which involved intravenous doses of many drugs — some orally administered drugs, some intramuscular injections and some injections into his spinal column by lumbar puncture. That treatment continued after he left hospital. In fact, he still has to attend hospital regularly.
The important point is that he could not sit his examination. He was admitted to hospital on the very day on which he was to sit the first part of his degree examination. On the day that he was to sit the second part of his degree examination—I said "day"; it probably covered many days—he was in hospital and could not do so. The Government say that he should not get a grant because he did not sit that examination. That is a grave injustice to that young man.
Many who suffer leukaemia, as Jonathan Carson does at present, would give up. But Jonathan Carson is not a quitter. He does not give way to resentment or despondency as a result of his medical condition. Instead, he fights to continue his studies. I plead with the Government to enable him to continue his studies. Last month, in a letter to me, Jonathan Carson said:
Mentally, I have been strong since the beginning. My attitude has always been to fight, while doing exactly as I am told by the hospital.
I shall continue to fight. I am to stay in the vicinity of the hospital for at least two years.
So be it. I have not once yet said: 'Why me?' and I have no intention of saying it.
He pays tribute — unfortunately, because of the shortness of time available I cannot repeat it — to the staff, of the hospital and of the university of Liverpool, which he attended.
I have argued with the Department of Education in Northern Ireland that it should regard his as a special case and make' sure that a grant is given to Jonathan Carson to enable him to pursue his postgraduate research and take his master of philosophy degree. However, my representations were rejected by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. They were also rejected when I made a further plea directly to the Minister responsible, and, despite the fact that my constituent has shown ability, the Government still say no.
Jonathan Carson was recommended by the university for an aegrotat degree—obtained without examination. That was conferred on him on 9 July. The aegrotat recommendation by the board of examiners in French and linguistics states:
his course work throughout his final year until the onset of the disease was consistently of a III standard in linguistics and IN in French.
In effect, he was expected to obtain overall a mid to high 2:1 joint honours degree. The acting head of the department of French at the University of Liverpool told me in a letter:
As one of our 2 or 3 best students, he had already been selected to fill the post of lecturer at a French University next year for 1 year.
Doctor Waller emphasised:
the case of Mr. Carson is an extraordinarily deserving one … I would hope that it is still not too late to make a further appeal in this 1987–88 Academic year. His case is so patently


deserving, for both accademic and compassionate reasons, that the Northern Ireland Department of Education decision seems to me to be scandalous".
That is strong language from Dr. Waller, the acting head of the department of French. I am sure that he is not accustomed to using such language, unless he feels that he should.
I close with this further and final appeal to the Leader of the House to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to give way in this case. Jonathan Carson has been advised that he must continue his treatment at the Royal Liverpool hospital for two years at least. The course that he wishes to follow lasts for two years. He is eager to continue his research and he has shown his determination by enrolling as a part-time student at Liverpool university. His father cannot afford the substantial expenses involved in his son's staying there for two years, quite apart from all the worry that he, the mother and family have about this young man's medical future. To the credit of the academic staff of the University of Liverpool, the university has given him an interest-free loan to cover his registration fees, but more needs to be done by the Government. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to intervene in this case and make the Department of Education in Northern Ireland change its mind to enable this young man, who has shown so much courage and strength, to pursue his academic career with dignity.

Mr. William O'Brien: I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that we must defend the rights of the individual, as expounded by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). To some degree I shall follow the subject that he raised, by defending the rights of the families of individals. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the respect and thanks that are due to hospital staff, and I, too, want to dwell a little on that.
First, I must report to the House with regret that I learned today of the death of four railway engineers who were working on the railway line from Leeds to Sheffield, which runs through my constituency. They were working with a gang of eight workmen, and four of them were struck by a moving train and fatally injured. I am sure that all hon. Members join me in expressing condolences to the families of those people. I mention the defence of individuals and families because I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, who later contacted me to say that there would be a public inquiry, either in a coroner's court or in some other way, into this serious matter. We must ensure that the interests of the families of those individuals are safeguarded at all times.
The point that I wanted to raise before learning of that tragic event concerns the intensive care unit at Pindersfield hospital, which is in my constituency. Admissions to the unit were stopped on 27 November. The decision was taken by the neurosurgeon and anaesthetist on call that day. It meant that patients were diverted to Leeds, or were not admitted to any intensive care unit if no beds were available. The cancellation of admissions and of the neurosurgical operation list for the Mondays of the past week and of this week is devastating for my constituents and for people served by Pindersfield hospital. Tensions have been dramatically heightened by what is happening in the area.
The cancellations are a direct result of the shortage of trained nursing staff at the Pindersfield hospital intensive care unit. The unit is allowed approximately half the number of trained nurses that are required for its seven beds. The intensive care unit should have 41 trained nurses to provide 24-hour cover on a three-shift basis. The present staffing level is 24. That is a shocking reduction in what is required to maintain the 24-hour staffing level of the unit. It means that the unit can often provide adequate nursing to cover only four or five critically ill patients. In other words, only four or five beds can be occupied by clinical patients, so there is a tremendous shortfall in provision.
The work load of the unit has dramatically and significantly risen this year because the regional health authority agreed to the appointment of an additional neurosurgeon, but no provision was made for additional beds or additional trained nurses to give the necessary back-up service. That is a significant and severe problem because, on occasions, beds in adjacent wards must be taken over to provide additional intensive care facilities.
There is a real shortage of resources at the hospital. The extension of beds so reduced the nursing care facilities available to each patient that the consultant neurosurgeons found the position so anomalous and dangerous that they could not allow matters to continue. They were rightly concerned about the decline in morale among the nursing staff on the intensive care unit, which was due to their undoubtedly heavy work load.
The fall in morale is reflected in the difficulty of filling vacancies, at least for the necessary posts at the intensive care unit. Because of the low level of trained nursing staff at that unit, in the interests of patients the consultant neurosurgeons are restricting admissions so that the level of nursing care remains adequate. The consultants have given notice that they will review on a day to day basis the number of patients and nurses in the intensive care unit and that they will restrict admissions until the situation improves.
I attended the unit yesterday morning before I came to the House. I was accompanied by the chairman and district manager of the health authority, the consultants, the director of nursing services, the ward sister and the trade union representatives. I discussed the real problem facing the unit. All the people present agreed — there was no dissension whatever—that there was a shortage of trained nurses. I noticed during the brief period that I was there the nurses at work going from patient to patient. They were performing processing care for the patients and were working to full capacity all the time that we were at that unit. It is wrong to deny those nurses the support of extra nurses to ensure that there is no distress among the nurses and patients. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is not in her place. She should stop hiding behind statistics and should stop hiding the real facts that I have outlined about what is happening at this intensive care unit. We need additional resources, and we need them now.
Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, notice should be taken of the problems experienced by hospitals throughout the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the area from which I come. Indeed, throughout the country there is an acute shortage of trained nurses. It is not a case of a ward in a hospital closing. Intensive care units are having trouble and beds are being closed because of the lack of fully trained nurses. I hope that someone will


take note of what is happening in the Pindersfield hospital, where there is a shortage of such nurses. There is a shortage of resources, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of that.
The people whom I met yesterday were not trade union activists who, we are often told, are the people who make statements to the press and create problems in our Health Service. As I have said, yesterday I met the chairman and the general manager of the health authority, the consultants, the director of nursing services, trade unionists and the ward sister. Everyone agreed that there was a special need for additional resources in order to maintain the service to which the patients and people in our area are entitled. The same goes for everyone in west Yorkshire. More trained nurses should be provided to safeguard the service that is necessary in our hospitals, and especially in the Pindersfield hospital.
Before the House goes into recess, I hope that hon. Members will have regard for the serious situation in my constituency. I appeal to the Minister who is responsible for providing resources to ensure that they are made available so that the patients served by the Pindersfield hospital are not denied the necessary service of the intensive care unit. I hope that some action will result from this debate and that some resources will be provided to make sure that hospitals such as Pindersfield hospital are given the necessary trained nurses that they require to maintain their services.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House rises for the Christmas recess, I should like to deal briefly with three matters. The first is about safety. I am surprised that little has been said about the obvious danger of people riding bicycles and wearing Walkmans, but I am even more surprised that little or no mention has been made about the dangers of car phones.
I applaud the companies that are selling car phones, because they are obviously doing extremely well. At the moment there are 250,000 car phones in use, and in two years that figure will double. Daily as I drive behind people I am amazed to see that they are driving with one hand and talking into a car phone held in the other hand. On many occasions I have seen people driving round corners while using car telephones. Even more dangerous, I have seen people talking on car phones while driving on motorways. Somehow the House should try to get something done about that.
My second point is that I have the privilege to represent in the House on a voluntary basis the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations. All hon. Members will recognise and acknowledge the therapeutic value of hospital radio broadcasting to their constituents who are, unfortunately, in hospital. Such people enjoy listening to hospital radio, and there are 300 hospital radios throughout the country.
On a number of occasions in the last Parliament I made a plea for zero-rated VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment. Two years ago the Chancellor zero-rated talking books for the blind. Hopefully, we can look forward in the coming Budget to zero-rated VAT on equipment used for hospital radio broadcasting.
My final point is about the report that has just been released by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The report is called:

A report into the plight of stray, tethered and abandoned horses and ponies in England and Wales".
Twice in the last Parliament I attempted to introduce the Horses and Ponies Bill which would have protected those animals from what I saw as their plight. The report from the RSPCA says:
The only solution to the plight of thousands of tethered horses and ponies throughout the United Kingdom is a change in the law which will ban or severely restrict the practice of tethering.
The report points to three areas in which the RSPCA thinks that abuse takes place. First, the report talks about the horses and ponies that are used for the purpose of earning a livelihood. Then it talks about parents purchasing ponies and horses for their children, not realising the heavy cost involved in maintaining those horses and ponies.
Finally, and most distressing of all, the report talks about animals that are abandoned on waste ground, fattened up and ultimately sent to the knacker's yard. I wish all hon. Members a happy Christmas and I hope that when I attempt to introduce the measure in this Parliament they will support it and help to make a happy Christmas for horses, ponies and donkeys by giving them some protection in legislation.

Miss Joan Lestor: I want to comment briefly on a matter that took my attention during the time that I was away from the House. It is a matter which, in a general sense, we rarely debate: what is happening to children in our society? I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) who raised the subject of hospitals. Those who watched the programme the other night about 24 premature babies with a heart condition who died in one year because of the lack of intensive care facilities are aware of how this example can be applied to what is happening to children in our society, whether at birth or later in their lives.
When we talk about children and the improvements that have taken place, particularly since the end of the war, it is usual for us to quote statistics and to say how much healthier children are and how much better their teeth are. However, a growing number of children in our society do not share in that prosperity. As we prepare to rise for the Christmas recess, and as we feast ourselves and enjoy the festivities, we must remember that many children are suffering enormously in various ways. The House never debates the subject of children generally. We debate various issues relating to children—particularly health, education and pre-school—but we never debate what is happening to a growing minority of children in circumstances which I find frightening.
A report dealing with the illegal trafficking of children in Europe and many parts of the world will shortly be discussed by the Council of Europe. It deals particularly with illegal adoption. Some children come into this country, but particularly into other parts of Europe and America. These children have literally been bought and sold on the market and given or taken to homes that want them because, for example, there is a shortage of children to adopt or, unfortunately, for other reasons which I do not have time to go into. Some of these children are sold in circumstances which do not bear investigation and, sadly, are not investigated. When the Council of Europe considers the report, I hope that we shall get more information about what is happening.
Children throughout the world are sold into prostitution, and others drift into prostitution. When we congratulate ourselves, as we so often do, on the sort of Christmas that we shall have, we should remember that between 600 and 700 homeless, young people are going through the Centre Point refuge. Many of those homeless young people end up on our streets being involved in stealing, prostitution or many other unfortunate activities. There are 15,000 missing young people in this country today. During the Christmas period of 1986–87, twice as many children were missing as in the previous year. That figure is forecast to increase this year. The House should consider in far greater detail why this happens.
I believe that we should have a Royal Commission to consider all matters affecting children. That belief was strengthened when I was away from the House and had time to consider what was happening to abused children and to other children in trouble and in need. The problem of gambling among young children is growing. Children who hang around leisure centres and arcades are involved in gambling, and the European report suggests that many of them are picked up and involved in prostitution or end up in need of care and protection.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) mentioned the minority of people—in some areas, a large minority—whose housing conditions are appalling. For example, young children are brought up in bed-andbreakfast accommodation, 30 per cent. of which, according to the magazine Health Visitor, does not meet local authority standards for sanitary accommodation and general amenities. Many such properties are fire risks. Young children are confined to one room, without any play facilities, in which the whole family eats, sleeps and cooks. The fire risk is very high. This Christmas, those children will sit and watch their television sets—if they have them. Perhaps they are lucky not to have them. Otherwise they would see expensive toys and luxuries advertised that other children will be able to have and that they know will never come their way.
About 1·25 million children live in families in which one or both parents are unemployed. A recent DHSS study published by the policy studies unit last year explained that the standard of living for many of those children was deplorable. Many of those children had only one pair of shoes, and many of those families in which the main breadwinner was unemployed ran out of food and money before the week was out. Babies, especially those born in winter, were kept indoors and failed to thrive as a result of vitamin deficiencies, especially deficiencies of vitamins A and D. The mental and physical growth of those children is adversely affected, as we can well imagine.
Reported cases of child abuse are increasing, although I would not like to say whether the actual cases are increasing. That abuse is not just sexual, but physical and emotional. The abuse appears to be increasing. I believe it is important that the Government should recognise that many people working in connection with child abuse, child poverty and child neglect believe that the Government have done nothing like enough to try to mitigate the worst effects of the children's circumstances.
I am aware — and I am certain that all hon. Members, if they are honest, are aware—that while we express great sympathy for children who suffer from abuse, neglect and battering—not all of the children are

poor; many are, but this is not simply a crime of poverty — and while we condemn those who ill-treat children, when those children grow up and repeat the pattern that they have learnt, the condemnation of those children, with whom we once sympathised, because they are now maladjusted adults, knows no bounds. We are building up enormous problems for our society if we constantly state how much better conditions are now for many children and overlook the fact that a large minority of children are deprived, ill-clad, ill-housed, ill-fed and neglected.
When we talk about the Christmas festivities and enjoying ourselves— I am sure that all hon. Members will enjoy themselves — it is important, as we avail ourselves of the better side of society, to remember that many children will not enjoy such a Christmas. Conservative Members refer to "talking the country down" and failing to recognise the amazing achievements in this country, but they should remember that we sell those children short if we do not have the guts to stand up and say that this will be a very poor Christmas for many of them. It is about time that the House recognised its duty to improve things.

Mr. Derek Conway: Because of the number of speakers on the health argument in recent weeks, there can be little doubt that that is a matter of great importance both inside and outside the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) expressed the concern in Shropshire. I do not apologise for returning to the plight of hospitals in Shropshire, because that is of major concern to those of us who live in the county.
There can be little doubt that a degree of party politicking is going on in this respect. I can understand the motivations of Labour and Liberal politicians and trade union leaders in the county who try to mislead those who are ill-informed on these matters and to frighten the elderly about the future of the Health Service. That is perhaps what we would expect of the Opposition, and I duly criticise them for that. They know that it is too simple just to claim that it is all the Government's fault.
I shall tonight point the blame where I believe it lies. One of the problems in Shropshire is that the West Midlands regional health authority, within whose boundary we regrettably lie, is 10 per cent. under-funding the county of Shropshire according to the RAWP scale, which is the Government's method of assessing National Health Service need.
The headlines in the media always cry "Cuts". That is simple to print and difficult to explain. However, revenue spending in Shropshire on the hospital service increased from £29·1 million in 1978–79 under the previous Labour Government to £61·3 million in 1985–86, the last available figures under this Government. The capital spending of the county of Shropshire has risen from £1 million in 1978–79 under the previous Labour Government to £10·3 million in 1985–86. That is hardly a cut, and, even allowing for the special rate of inflation that applies to Health Service spending, the income of the West Midlands region from this Government is 19 per cent. ahead of inflation. Talk about cuts is simply an easy media and politicking ploy. It has no substance in fact.
There is, however, a problem in the county of Shropshire and its health service. On 29 June I brought the problem to the notice of the House in an Adjournment


debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security replied to the debate, but sadly stuck rigidly to her brief on the regional authority and did not cover the problems in Shropshire, which was the purpose of the debate.
We constantly hear about the regional situation. Shropshire is a rural county, with half its population— 220,000 people—living in the rural part of the county. There are 11 market towns, 17 villages with more than 1,000 people and 374 villages with fewer than 100. There are 5,000 farms scattered across the county, which means that it is a large and principally rural-based county. I represent the county town of Shrewsbury and several villages around it. The ever-growing new town of Telford in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is also in the county.
Shropshire health authority proposed to build a second district general hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. We all have our views on whether that decision was taken because of health needs or because the constituency is politically marginal. I am quite clear about my views on that. I took a delegation to visit the former Minister for Health when the proposal was first brought forward. The consultants in the delegation and I warned him that the consultant cover for the country would not increase as a result of the creation of a second giant hospital within the rural county. It would simply mean that the consultants would spend more time in their motorcars travelling between the two hospitals. Undoubtedly the cost of the hospital would have an effect on the county of Shropshire as a whole.
I welcome this opportunity to put on the record and say to the people of Shropshire that I do not disagree for a moment that Telford needs a hospital. However, I argue with the Government whether it needs one on the scale and size of a district general hospital. A deal was struck that Shropshire would receive an extra £4 million funding from the region when the Telford hospital opened. If the newspapers in particular had read closely the proposal put forward by the health authority, they would have discovered that not only would the building result in the closure of 10 cottage hospitals in the county, but that there was a rather vicious sentence hidden in the first paragraph of the proposals, which states:
The remaining sum required to run the hospital would be obtained by rationalising services.
The people of Shropshire have not been told by the health authority, which theoretically represents Shropshire, and which is ducking its responsibilities right, left and centre, exactly what the rationalisation proposal would be. Once the 10 cottage hospitals are closed, what will he left? There will be a new giant hospital in Telford and a large district general hospital in Shrewsbury. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North that perhaps our internationally acclaimed orthopaedic hospital might be next on the hit list. The health authority unquestionably thrust the hospital into the centre of the county, and the authority is now ducking its responsibilities. Shropshire needs its RAWP allocation to be scaled with its underfunding. That will happen only if Telford hospital is scaled down and the cottage hospitals saved. Let the blame be put where the blame lies.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On these occasions it is customary for us to speak against adjourning for Christmas. I shall not indulge in that hypocrisy. As my hon. Friends have made most effective and succinct cases, I do not propose to comment on what they said, as comment would be superfluous. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who has taken Trappist vows for the evening, I can say that the case of the two other hon. Members from Shropshire can be put exceedingly succinctly. Health care in Shropshire will reach the level that the people of Shropshire deserve, only if more money is provided for the health authority. It is a bit potty for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) to suggest that the only way to protect health care in Shrewsbury is insufficiently to improve health care in Telford, a little further across the county.
I shall concentrate my speech on a major issue which has been before the House for the past few days. This debate has been used, quite rightly, by Mr. Speaker as his reason for rejecting a number of applications under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate on the gagging by the Government of the BBC. It is worth putting it on record, that the Government — or the Tory party, the Government in their other manifestation—have brought forward a series of measures in an effort to gag the BBC to such an extent that, if it were happening in a foreign country, the BBC overseas service would start referring to itself as the state broadcasting corporation.
Mr. Stuart Young was appointed chairman of the governors of the BBC. There was not much coverage of the fact that he was the brother of Lord Young, a Cabinet Minister. Since his death, the chairmanship has been taken on by a Mr. Marmaduke Hussey who is also related to a member of the Government, this time by marriage, and who was a former leading light in the Murdoch operations and the move to Wapping, which is not normally regarded as an indication of any independence of thought or anything else. Mr. Howell James was appointed to a senior post in the corporate affairs department of the BBC. The Young family strikes again, because that man used to work in the private office of Lord Young, advising him on this, that and the other.
There has been public pressure from the former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). No one could have brought greater public pressure to bear on the editorial independence of the BBC. We understand from journalists in this place and outside that they have been told by their management that they should go easy when they interview Tory Ministers because of the pressures that they face from the Government. That was followed by the Zircon affair, when the Government carried out an extraordinary police raid on the BBC in Glasgow, taking away crates of material which they eventually had to return, admitting that they had not found a shred of evidence to justify their original action. They also obtained the injunction which they used to stifle the showing of the Zircon film on these premises.
Finally — I doubt whether it is final; the Government's attempts to gag the BBC and fair comment are growing, so this is their latest attempt, not their last


—they have obtained an injunction following the intention of the BBC to broadcast the radio programme, "My Country, Right or Wrong."
We were led to believe by a preposterous statement from the Attorney-General last week that the Government knew not a thing about the programme until it was mentioned in the "Peterborough" column of The Daily Telegraph. Admirable newspaper though it is, I cannot believe that the Government, and in particular the security services, did not know before they read it in The Daily Telegraph that somebody was making a programme about the security services and was interviewing existing and former members — particularly as we know from the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that one of them had written to the boss of the Security Service to point out that he was to take part in an interview. Yet, for no apparent reason, the Government did not know a thing about it and suddenly said, "Deane me, there is an article in The Daily Telegraph and something must be done about it."
The Government obtained an injunction against the BBC. I understand from legal advice I have received that, if the BBC were to report proceedings in Parliament during which hon. Members referred to the names of serving or retired members of the security services, the BBC could potentially be in breach of the injunction.
It goes further than that, because of another Court of Appeal ruling which suggests that the court is falling down on its duty to preserve freedom of speech. The Court of Appeal held that an injunction against one newspaper might in certain circumstances be held to cover other newspapers, so the ruling that the Government have obtained against the BBC may very well apply to other news media, including newspapers which attempt to report the House.
We have the ridiculous situation where members or former members of the security services might be mentioned in the House and, if that were reported by the BBC or a newspaper, they might be held to be in contempt. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to issue you with a warning: were you to call the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who it is well known is a former member of the security service, and the BBC reported it, it could be held in contempt of court. It might be a bit hard on the hon. Member for Woking — not being reported and his constituents not finding out what he had been talking about. The idea that somebody in the House is bleeped out because they mention a former member of the security services is absolutely ludricrous. Does it mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I mention the words "Graham Greene" or "Malcolm Muggeridge", both acknowledged former members of the security services, those words will be bleeped out for fear that the BBC is held in contempt of court?
If the Government are trying to stop people mentioning the name of Mr. Peter Wright, a contemporary spycatcher, is it the case — this is how the instrument that the Government put before the court was drawn— that we cannot mention Oliver Cromwell's spycatcher, Thurloe, because he was a former member of the security services? We are reaching an absurd situation.
I understand from people who were Ministers at the time that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) had a hush-hush job in the Foreign Office which might be

regarded as part of the security services. Does that mean that we cannot mention him and have his name reported outside the House?
BBC Radio Essex, which proposed to review a play featuring acknowledged former members of the security services, Messrs Philby, Burgess and Maclean, was advised that they could not carry that item, except at risk of an action for contempt of court. Does it mean that Kim Philby could appear live on Soviet television last week or the week before, but cannot be mentioned live or otherwise on BBC television or radio? This is the absurd situation into which the ridiculous Government have brought us.
The matter is not just ludicrously silly and funny ha-ha: it is funny dangerous, because it shows that the Government are trying to gag the BBC and other newspapers in pursuit of a newly invented principle that people who have worked for the Crown have an absolute duty of lifelong confidentiality. No such duty can be as absolute as that because it would mean, if we take it seriously, that a servant of the Crown who knew of murder, rape or major fraud that no one else was going to talk about, would be under a duty for ever to keep silent about murder, rape or major fraud. That is obviously nonsense.
A servant of the Crown, such as Wright, who claims that there was an attempt to overthrow the elected Government of the country, has a duty to speak the truth about that, if it is true— and I hold no brief for Mr. Wright, who is obviously a rather dubious character. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he has a greater duty to blow the whistle on people attempting to overthrow an elected Government than any duty of confidentiality that the Government may have just invented.
It was established—I do not want to carry this to a great extreme—in the principles enunciated in the trials of war criminals at Nuremburg at the end of the second world war, that obeying orders and statutes was not the final defence; there were duties over and above that. We are now saying that those duties still apply. If members of the security services believe that other parts of the security services were attempting to overthrow an elected Government, they have a duty to disclose it, not an absolute duty to keep quiet about it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you to raise with Mr. Speaker the points raised by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Thanet, South and me, because we are still concerned about the extent to which the Government's ludicrous efforts in the courts are stifling the BBC and seeking to stifle the free reporting of free debate in the House, about which we should all be concerned, no matter on which side of the House we sit or work. It is vital to the liberty of the country that we be allowed to talk about what we like and that we should be freely reported by a free press when we do so.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): These regular Adjournment debates are a valuable opportunity for hon. Members to draw attention to matters of personal and constituency concern. It is interesting to refer tonight to the matters that have not been raised—unemployment, inflation, our handling of the economy and industrial action. That is a clear indication that the House is confident of the Government's approach to those matters.
In the little time that is left I shall do my best to reply to the points that have been raised.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not give way to anybody. I shall go straight through. I hope to deal with the hon. Lady's speech if I have time. I shall go as fast as I can through the points that have been raised, because I believe that is what I am supposed to do.
The former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) raised concerns about the 10 cottage hospitals in their constituency. I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the points that have been raised, and I give my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the assurances that they are seeking. The consultation arrangements will not be a formality. Full account will be taken of what they have said and the processes will be carried through properly and efficiently.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) raised certain matters, but, obviously, I am under some restraint as to what I can say. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman recognised that fact. I can only say that the use of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which the right hon. Gentleman questioned, is a matter for the Attorney-General. The Government recognise that section 2 of that Act is unsatisfactory and no one disputes the fact that reform is desirable. However, so far there has been little agreement on the nature of that reform.
In 1979, when we first took office, we introduced a Bill that would have significantly narrowed the scope of section 2 of the Act, but that Bill did not find favour in Parliament or outside. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have told the House that we have had work in hand for some time to find effective, enforceable and reasonable provisions to replace section 2. If, in the light of that work, we decide to bring forward further proposals for reform, we shall announce our intentions to the House.
Discussions on those matters have been confused with a second issue—the injunctions. In spite of what some hon. Members have said, the Government's view—we have been very clear on this — is that members and former members of the Security Service are under a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown in relation to information deriving from their employment. In the interests of the country, the Government attach great importance to protecting that confidentiality.
In response to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may I say that the BBC is still refusing to provide information that will enable the Government to consider whether the three programmes in the series "My Country, Right or Wrong" contain any material in breach of the duty of confidentiality. I do not believe that I should say anything more on that subject tonight.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke about housing. The Government recognise that we have not achieved everything that everyone wants with regard to housing. There is general concern about homelessness, and that is why we are taking positive action to revitalise the private rented sector and increase the choice of rented accommodation in other ways. Many of use believe that

those measures will help. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of capital receipts — many of my hon. Friends have also raised that matter with me — and I understand that the total accummulation of capital receipts in the country is £8 billion. Clearly the Government must be concerned about the control and rate of reinvestment of those sums—we must keep that process under control.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) had to leave because his wife is unwell, and I hope that she will soon recover. I thought that his speech was a breath of fresh air in the proceedings today and I enjoyed it a great deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) discussed taxation, and I take on board the points that he made. I was also interested to hear what he had to say about drink and driving. As the chairman of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, I listened with care to his speech. From my experience, I believe that if we were able to enforce the existing laws on drink and driving, we would go a considerable way towards dealing with some of the worst of the problems. My hon. Friend made a number of suggestions—I am aware that some of them did not find favour with some of our hon. Friends—and I shall consider them carefully to see whether some of them require further consideration.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised the question of the extradition arrangements. I understand the concern that is felt. Indeed, certain personal experience enables me to recognise that concern. We welcome the Irish Government's decision to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. 'We note that they have now introduced further procedural steps regarding the backing of the warrant process. We are naturally concerned that those measures should not impede extradition arrangements within these islands. We shall keep the operation of the new Irish requirements under close scrutiny, and we welcome the commitment of the Taoiseach to review those requirements if they do not work satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the case of his constituent, Mr. Carson. Obviously I cannot answer that case, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, if we cannot do something to help that gentleman it will not be due to the lack of advocacy on the part of my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke of the death of the four railway workers in his constituency today. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the whole House would wish to send condolences in those sad circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the lack of intensive care nurses at the hospital in his constituency, but obviously at this stage I cannot comment on the detail of his speech. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members is that they might care to read the figures in the editorial in The Guardian today. I shall not embarrass them by quoting them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) raised three important points in rapid time. He raised the question of car telephones. The Department of Transport strongly advises that drivers should not use hand-held car telephones when driving. Indeed, we believe that, in certain circumstances, such drivers may he committing the offence of driving without due care and attention.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of VAT and hospital radio. The Government appreciate the valuable service provided by hospital broadcasting organisations. However, there are serious difficulties in extending VAT relief in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend also asked for action concerning the report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the tethering of horses. The Government will consider that report, but I should like to point out that it is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to tether animals in such a way that they are denied access to food and water or in a way that might lead to injury.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) gave us a timely reminder that there are many children in various parts of world, unfortunately including this country, who are suffering and will be suffering at Christmas. I accept the hon. Lady's point. I shall be sharing the joy of Christmas with three sons at home, which is one more than I had last year — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear".] I cannot guarantee that that rate of increase will continue.
All in all, the House can adjourn for Christmas knowing that this country is now going from strength to strength with a Government who pursue policies of sound money, low inflation and prudent finance, and who encourages enterprise. The House can adjourn for Christmas in the knowledge that Britain is eager and waiting to tackle the challenges of 1988, ever stronger and fitter and ever more determined—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 18th December do adjourn until Monday 11th January, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 18th December until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (No. 2)

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Inner-city areas

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I have chosen for the subject of my debate the effect of market forces on building design and planning in inner-city, urban and rural areas. I deliberately chose that subject to cover the broad spectrum of concerns in the area of design and planning and to give hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on this important subject from a variety of perspectives.
This debate represents a consistent approach on my part. Indeed, hon. Members may recall that, in my first address to this House, barely a week ago, I made reference to the design defects, particularly prevalent in my constituency, that have caused significant problems to housing, especially the crumbling of the so-called Bison tower blocks on Druids Heath, and Smith houses.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s, demographic, political and financial market forces dictated that design and planning considerations were dominated by the aims of speed of construction and rapid accommodation for the relocation of the largest possible number of people. Much of that resulted in system-built or prefabricated building designs which have since proved disastrous—not only in terms of the buildings' longevity, but in human terms. They have also cost an arm and a leg to maintain, because of the necessary repairs. Those problems have multiplied as councils have striven to meet the costs from within their allocations.
If the House will bear with me, I should like to read out the shameful roll-call of some of the designs now designated under the housing defects legislation. They include Smith, Dyke, Orlit, Schindler Hawksley, Waller, Wessex, Boot, Parkinson, Rema hollow panel, Unity and Buttersiey, Stent, Smith BSC, Underdown, Waites, Wingate, Willoway, Airey, Cornish Unit, Doran, Myton, Newland, Stonecrete, Gregory, Tarmac and Boswell. What an appalling catalogue of design failures.
Design can no longer be treated as an unfettered tool of demographic, political or financial expediency. Design and planning in urban inner cities are human concerns with serious human consequences; thus, they should not be left solely to the expedient vagaries of market forces. Design standards should be continually questioned, uprated, better established and better enforced in future.
We now focus our attention on inner-city urban areas, and we rightly encourage the involvement of private sector


developers—in co-operation with the public sector—in rebuilding and rehousing in certain parts of our cities. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the same errors are never repeated. Design quality must be paramount for human, environmental and, in the longer term, financial reasons. Design quality must be improved by market forces, rather than sacrificed to them. Exactly the same strictures may be applied to planning. We as a House should particularly urge planners in the inner-city and urban areas—the urban development corporations and others — to consider carefully the human, social, community-type, security and the environmental aspects so well, developed by, for example, Professor Alice Coleman, and which was sadly so little considered by planners in the past.
I know that hon. Members will wish to expand on this aspect. However, I should naturally like to refer to my own city of Birmingham — part of which I am proud to represent—as representing both the best and the worst examples of how market forces in the past have so influenced design and planning to the detriment of human and environmental elements. Subsequently, that has damaged the city's image, and may consequently pose a challenge to its renewal and future prosperity.
That brings me naturally to the city's exciting initiatives to amend the planning errors of the past and to the designs of the various buildings and projects that are now in hand. It would be inappropriate for me not to mention the interest expressed in the subject by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. While it may cause something of a stir to imply that designs for the new Birmingham convention centre resemble a concrete rocket silo, or that other buildings' designs look like upturned mirrors, it nevertheless serves an excellent purpose in focusing our attention on whether designers and planners are yet giving sufficient importance to the essential correlation, or relationship, between quality and aesthetics, as well as to the human and environmental aspects of modern building designs.
It is vital in this context, as much with the perhaps more mundane subject of housing design as with the more exotic and expensive projects, that market forces should be harnessed in a positive sense, rather than being allowed to prejudice that essential relationship. For a city such as Birmingham, which is of paramount importance in human terms, as well as in its drive to match its image and appeal to its reborn prosperity. I am sure that His Royal Highness's interest and remarks will contribute greatly to harnessing the market forces in a particularly positive way.
I have deliberately touched on these subjects only to introduce the debate. I shall conclude by saying that there are three important areas for us to examine in an initial spectrum covering the subject: the design defects, the human element in planning, and the central correlation of quality and aesthetics, together with the human and environmental aspects. I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak and to expand on those aspects in a more wide-ranging fashion.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Let me first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), whose predecessor is well remembered in the House and who specialised in urban problems, was fortunate enough to

gain first place in this Consolidated Fund debate. It is equally fortunate that my hon. Friend managed to pick a subject that has the interest and the ear of the country, in the shape of the remarks about architecture made by the Prince of Wales. It is timely and appropriate that, at the earliest opportunity, the House should discuss the matter.
I think that nearly all hon. Members—although the House is rather thinly populated tonight—are concerned about design and architecture. We look foward to hearing what the Minister says when he winds up the debate, for he is well known for making provocative and constructive remarks. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should rephrase that: his remarks are radical and constructive. When the debate is over, he will no doubt make some very helpful suggestions.
I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to participate in this debate. I do not wish to filibuster, or to do anything that might delay our progress.
I have had the good fortune, as a Member of this honourable House, to represent two constituencies. One was a wedge-shaped constituency in Liverpool, which went into the inner city and came out like an orange into the outer city. I have experienced the most deprived housing and the most deprived areas of the inner city. I have had the opportunity to represent people living in the middle and outer city areas, and also those living on the vast, soulless council estates on the edges of the city built in the 1950s and 1960s. There I witnessed the outflow of population, for the constituency was always suffering from population loss, as a result of the redrawing of boundaries to provide a better balance of constituencies in urban areas.
Many of those who left the inner city moved down to the constituency that I now represent, in the rural part of south-west England. There has been a move from the north, the north-east and the north-west to the south-east and south-west over the past 20 years. It is very much like what happened in America—although it is on a smaller scale — when people from the industrial cities in the north-west moved to the sun belt in the south.
I can therefore claim some qualification and experience through having represented two diametrically opposed areas, one with a population outflow and the other with a population inflow. My constituency has experienced a population growth of 14 per cent. in the past 10 years, and it seems to be increasing further.
This debate echoes the concern expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Much of the architecture in our country, he said, whether in the cities or rural areas, is tasteless. The country is covered with badly designed houses, blocks which are scars on the landscape and do little to enhance the environment. I hope that I do not malign him when I say that that is the gist of what he said.
The real problem now is not simply one of bad design —bad though much of it is—but one of scale. Whereas in the past we had little blocks of three or four houses, we now have these vast blocks of not only public housing but private housing, too. Their size is the cause of the problem. In the 1950s and 1960s, we had major demolition programmes in our industrial cities, resulting, understandably and rightly, in the destruction of our inner-city slums.
Unfortunately, along with the slums went neighbourhoods and communities, and people were put on the outskirts of the cities, in vast, soulless council estates where the design was appalling and the amenities poor. Many of


the problems in our urban areas are caused by the inhumane conditions in which many people were forced to live by councils which put them in extremely bad, damp housing, or in high-rise blocks, with few amenities, and in an environment which breeds crime, vandalism and all the problems from which the inner cities suffer. In this respect, the inner city has been replaced by the outer city. That is where the problems are now, because of the transfer of people from the inner to the outer city.
Those blots on the landscape are a thing of the past. No self-respecting council of whatever political complexion now builds similar large housing estates. They were built to satisfy a need, to provide housing for the people of the demolished inner city, who had to be decanted somewhere else. So we need not to concentrate for more than a moment on this kind of public housing, because it is a thing of the past and those vast estates will never be repeated.
Even so, many tens of thousands of people still live in them. Oddly enough, although houses built in earlier centuries have stood for hundreds of years, many council houses which were built 20 or 30 years ago are now being demolished. It is of extreme concern that so much public money has been poured into such vast council estates, which are being pulled down. It is regrettable but understandable.
We tend to believe that all private builders do a marvellous job and all council house builders do a bad job, but that is far too simplistic an assumption. I should like to speak from my experience of what has been happening in a rural part of the country, my constituency of South Hams. We have had a massive growth in population. How are we to stop it? Can we stop it? Should we stop it? Somebody suggested that we should have police blocks on all the roads round my contituency to stop people coming in, or institute a kind of passport control. That is hardly feasible. If people want to move to another area of the country, unless it is somewhere like the Isle of Man or Jersey where there are regulations to prevent people from doing so, they will continue to come. They can be stopped from coming—if indeed we should stop them—only if market forces prevent them.
The only way one can stop them from coming is by allowing no new houses to be built. One would not permit new buildings in green fields. But the result would be scarcity and high prices, and we would have only rich people. I do not know how these rich people would be serviced by electricians and builders and painters, and so on—they would have to be imported from neighbouring areas.
It is totally unrealistic to suppose that one can prevent market forces from working, and that is the first thing to be realised, which I am sure the Minister does. The market wants to live in the south. The retired, the more prosperous, the more mobile are moving south, just as in former days people moved from the inner cities to the suburbs and to new towns. It is the same in the south-east and the south-west; people are more mobile.
So what do we do? We respond to market forces and make land available under the district and structure plans. These, as many hon. Members know, are five-year land banks. Each local authority has to find so much land for this five-year rolling programme to satisfy its own structure or district plan. But this is a self-fulfilling

prophecy. Once the local authority locates and permits building on five years' worth of land, it has to find land for another five years. Unless the Minister tells us tonight that it will not be, it must be an endless series of five-year programmes; and if this goes on indefinitely there will be no green fields left. If the job of the Minister is to respond to market forces, it is inevitable that more and more green fields will be lost.
That is what has happened so far in South Hams, because people want to live in this tranquil, beautiful port, which contains areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas of great landscape value, conservation areas, heritage coastlines and a national park. The planners have had to provide land on which to build houses. That is where the problem starts. Former hamlets such as Thurlestone, Loddiswell, Ivybridge, Totnes and Kingsbridge have grown out of all recognition. These and other villages and towns have been swamped by large private estates built on the edges, which completely upset the balance of these beautiful towns built up over hundreds of years and with a mixture of designs, periods, colours and elevations. They have been overwhelmed by housing estates, their streets are inadequate and their periphery goes far beyond the original village curtilage.
The Government have been a party to this development, albeit unwittingly. Circular 22/80 and subsequent circulars, White Papers—notably "Lifting the Burden" — and ministerial speeches on the same subject have resulted in conflict between the way in which the Department of the Environment sees the planning system and the way in which my constituents and the general public perceive planning. Circulars 22/80 and 14/85 both show that the planners' regard for aesthetic control should not be exercised over-fastidiously and that control of external appearance should be exercised only where there is justification for it. As a result, the local authority planners have been powerless to stop the developers from building what they like, in whatever density and in whatever style they wish.
This is our basic problem tonight—the Government's unwitting contribution to the conflict between conservation and development. I am opposed not to development —it is inevitable— but to tasteless development. Most hon. Members will know what I mean — the identical modern houses, the identical modern prefabricated houses, and the use of mass-produced bricks and other materials, which lead to an unrelieved picture and a tasteless and unsympathetic environment.
I recently went to see my planners and they said, "You have difficult decisions to make. If you let the market forces solely apply this place will become overrun. Further, there is pressure to build and build on farming land and to develop it. There is no shortage of people who want to live here or developers who want to put up town houses. Within a short time your constituency could be overrun by identical private housing estates." I understand from a colleague to whom I was speaking last night that he has the same problem in Norfolk, as does a colleague in Suffolk. It is a national problem of land coming on stream and houses being built in the way that they are.
Circular 22/80 exercises detailed control over the external appearances of listed buildings in conservation areas and national parks. Elsewhere, planners are asked not to exercise detailed control to improve a design that conforms to the fashion of the moment.
The villages of Kingsbridge and lvybridge have been engulfed by vast private estates that are monotonous in their use of inappropriate materials — brick and reconstructed stone— and people who see those towns despair at how such development was ever allowed.
Unless planners, local politicians, architects and people who are interested in design are given power by the Government to be involved in the design and the quality of that design, we shall not see any improvement at all. We shall simply see more of the same thing.
I must pay tribute to the South Hams planners, who have been able to wrest some concession from developers. On one estate a developer wanted to use spar chipping finishes, but that was changed for the more traditional render finishes. The developers wanted to put red roofs on the skyline, but that was rejected in favour of grey and brown. That happened only because the planners managed to do a deal with the developer. If the developer had chosen to appeal, he could probably have got away with what he originally wanted.
In Ivybridge, which 10 years ago had a population of 1,400 people but which by 1992 will have a population of 14,000 people, it is not so much the growth as the unrelieved growth and the construction of identical streets that lead to the tasteless growth that planners are powerless to do anything about.
The Spaniards, Germans and French have standards in design and materials. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have been so obsessed by economics and by responding to development wherever people want to live. We have not insisted on the application of certain standards. Somebody said to me recently that in most of our small market villages it looks as though a philistine with no interest in aesthetics or any sympathy for the environment has been involved in designing the modern houses.
The thrust of what I am saying is probably understandable to hon. Members. The Government must place greater emphasis on planning applications to encourage not only employment prospects but the use of redundant barns and other buildings that can be found in our countryside. Further, they must say something about design, and materials and, put limitations on the size of estates.
I suggested to the Minister that every district authority should have a panel of architects so that when an estate of more than 20 houses is being built the architects can be asked to advise on design, preference of materials, the elevation and other matters so that it is consistent with conservation and blends into the environment.
My plea to the Minister is for him to review Government circulars and consider the trend that has allowed these estates to grow up. They are a national blight that he alone can reverse. I am not alone in feeling strongly on this matter; a great many colleagues feel equally strongly about it. We look to him to protect the environment and to say something helpful and constructive to the House tonight.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I shall be very brief, but I must say that I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
The Minister should introduce an annual national award for the worst designed, most ugly, offensive and tasteless building.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: There are too many competitors.

Mrs. Golding: We could have different classes. We could have those that have been built in the past five, 10, 20 or 100 years. I have a winner in my constituency— the worst designed building of the past 800 years. I live in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is my constituency, and there is a monstrosity in the town centre. The borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme is 800 years old, but I do not think that it has ever seen a worse building. It is built on massive concrete pillars, had an enormous green and orange frontage, and emblazoned across the top in large letters are the words "Fine Fare". The building is completely out of character with the rest of the town, and it is situated alongside an old black and white public house. The centre of the town, on to which it fronts, is Georgian.
Had there been such an award, I am sure that the planning committee that considered and approved the plans for that building would have realised how badly designed many Fine Fare buildings are, with their orange and green frontages. It would have been aware that people were monitoring the type of buildings that were going up and perhaps it would have saved the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme from being ruined by the Fine Fare building.
It is probably too late to do anything about it, but I should like Fine Fare to take all the orange and green front down. I doubt whether it will, because there is so much of it that it will not know what to do with it.

Mr. Steen: Ask it.

Mrs. Golding: I shall send the company a copy of Hansard and ask it to do so.
If planning committees were made aware that the country is watching and that it is concerned about the designs of buildings in our town centres and other large areas, perhaps something would be done to improve designs.
I hope that the Minister will seriously consider my proposition. I am certain that it would gain much support and I am sure that he would be inundated with entries, but none of them would beat the Fine Fare building.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: First, I congratulate my most genuinely hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on making two speeches in the past week, each of which was commendably brief and very much to the point. I know that already he has learnt that if he is to attract Mr. Speaker's attention, the briefer and more pithy the point, the more likely one is to be called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Hear, hear.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is nice to hear that call from the Chair.
I hope to be commendably brief. This is an important debate, which is why I am so pleased that it should have fallen to a Birmingham Member of Parliament to talk about the problems of people versus planners. My only disappointment is that I have to say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that she is braying in the wind in thinking that her monstrosity would win the prize for the worst building. We all have some terrible monstrosities. There are so many of them that it


is time that all hon. Members, and our local government colleagues who are also elected, recognise that something has gone terribly wrong.
It is said that I have been a critic of some people up the road of much more distinguished eminence than I. It is said that I have been a critic of the views put forward from Buck House. I believe that a certain distinguished person is quite right to have brought to the fore the problems of planning. In the past few years many building and planning decisions that have affected the lives of many of our people have been monstrosities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and I were both involved in local government in Birmingham. The first decision I made as chairman of the housing and housebuilding committee when we brought them together—my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley will remember that — was to stop the building of monstrosities such as multi-storey blocks of flats. So many people were concerned with housing units rather than homes.
I have had the honour to be in elected public life since the age of 22, and one of the great mistakes that we all made was thinking that it was more important to build units than to provide homes for people. It would have been better if some of those people had waited another six or 12 months and been built homes instead of just units. I always thought, when I look over Aston, which is part of Birmingham, that one of the biggest mistakes ever made was forgetting that people were concerned about living together as people and friends, even if the homes were slovenly. That is better than using people like confetti and spreading them all over the place in what seemed to be better housing units. They were better housing units, but they were not homes. When we look at Chelmsley Wood and Castle Vale in Birmingham and see the great blocks of flats that were built, we can see the great mistakes that were made in forgetting that we were trying to make better homes for people. It may be that we take up more land in building houses rather than flats.
In public life, whether in the House or wearing our council hats — many hon. Members present were councillors before becoming Members of Parliament—we should be more concerned to make life better for people instead of just housing them and getting them out of our hair. If we do not do that we are in a sort of tyranny. It is not simply a matter of us saying, "Let us put people in homes." When I was a councillor in Hall Green, one of my constituents wrote to me and said, "If you will get me a home, I shall be eternally grateful." I got her a home in a block of flats in Castle Vale. She wrote and told me how grateful she was. However, within six months, the lady wrote to me again and said, "This is hell." She said that she was on the eighth floor, had two children, was unable to watch them, and so on. She said, "You put me here." So I did, because I was then chairman of the housing committee. I look back on those days and think that we should not kid ourselves that just by giving someone a housing unit we are giving them a home. It is important to keep people together. It is important to build them homes in which they can be happy.
Because of the slums we all faced in the 1960s in cities such as Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford, we thought the most important thing was to get people out of those

slums and into something bright and new. It was not. We should have made sure that when we housed people we put them into homes in which they could be happy.
On planning, I believe that the eminent personage is quite right. Too often today, because of the strictures of cost, many buildings — whether they be multi-storey blocks of flats, multi-storey offices or public buildings—look like the buildings on the wonderful island of Guernsey where the Germans built pill boxes and gun emplacements. The eminent personage is right to point that out. It is not offensive to point it out and it is not going beyond the remit of any of us in public life, who take an interest.
We can look around the great cities of Europe which were pillaged during the war and suffered far more than we did. Dresden was obliterated in the war and 120,000 people died in one night's bombing. In Hamburg 60,000 people died in one night's bombing. However, those cities are far more beautiful than the cities of this country where we suffered, happily, far less than they did. Why were they able to design better things, built better cities and make a better environment? It is no excuse for architects to say, "We could not do it." If those cities suffered so much more than we did, why can they build things that we all go to look at and which give us great pleasure? The eminent person is right to point out that we should build things that people will look at and which are good on the eye.
This debate is properly based. It is based on two things. When we build large buildings, whether offices or other great buildings in our cities, whether council-owned or Government-owned, it is right that we should build something that future generations will think it is good to look upon. It is right that the idea of turning the National Gallery into a latter-day pill box was stopped.
Homes for people are even more important than any public building, and it is right that we should house people not as units but as people. We should build homes in which one generation after another will want to live. If I feel any guilt at all about my 30 years in public life, it is that that was not my main concern. My main concern, rightly in one way but not in another, was to sweep away slums. However, one forgot that when one swept away slums one often swept away family units, friendships and all those wonderful things that make human life worth while. I ask the next generation of planners to learn from the past and not to repeat the same mistakes.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am quite encouraged by the slight change in the philosophy of the Tory party. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), who opened the debate very effectively, said that these matters should not be left to market forces alone. I could not agree more. Then, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) made a profound plea for more planning and more effective planning. I can only request the hon. Gentlemen to see the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been busy driving coaches and horses through just about every aspect of planning and giving as free a rein to market forces as ever he could. The Housing Bill states quite openly and clearly, without any attempt at disguise, that the Government want housing left purely to market forces and that they want to take housing out of local authority control. There seems to be something of a dichotomy in the Conservative party.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) will stand in for me.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green that these are difficult matters that cannot be left to market forces, and that is particularly true of housing. Housing, by its very nature—involving as it does the supply of land and buildings—does not lend itself to normal market forces in the way the price of packets of tea or biscuits might be left to market forces. I agree, too, that we need more cooperation with the public sector. It would be much easier to get effective co-operation with the public sector if the Government were not busy knocking every local authority employee and civil servant and presenting them as a drain on the economic wealth of the nation. They are not. They form an essential part of the country's economic infrastructure and we would be very much poorer without them. It would help the morale of the public sector—both local authorities and the Civil Service—if Ministers recognised that.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak picked on the mistakes of the 1960s, and I agree with much of what he said. I also remember that period. I was not a member of a council at the time. I was one of those whom we refer to as political activists; one of those who make political democracy work, for all political parties. The hon. Gentleman will agree that at that time we were anxious about what we were doing and that we perhaps yielded too readily to the ideas of experts, particularly architects. I also distinctly remember a tendency to argue about the very question that the hon. Gentleman raised—whether we should go for quality of design. I remember being told—I think by an architect, although I cannot remember for sure as it was some years ago — that corners were being cut for economic reasons in many of the buildings that we were putting up. I can remember a Conservative in my area, which was then east London, saying, "Well, we are not going to give them houses and flats with gold-plated taps, are we?" That was an indication of the problems that would arise.
The hon. Gentleman rightly criticised the priority of building in quantity. One must either go for quality or insist on a minimum quality for the quantity of houses that one puts up. Our minimum standards should have been higher, and that is particularly true of high-rise flats. Although many high-rise flats need to come down, many would he acceptable if more effort had been put into them, if more money were put into them now and if they were slightly better managed. Some high-rise flats in both the public and the private sectors are popular, but they tend to be in blocks that are well-managed, with caretakers on duty and with extra facilities.
In the literature of the 1960s the architects said that buildings with 30 storeys or more ought to have every 10th or 12th floor set aside for leisure and recreation facilities, nurseries and so on. There are some incredibly tall buildings in Hong Kong. One tower block, built in a square with a hollow in the centre, houses 4,000 people — more that are housed on the biggest estates in Hammersmith. That block is popular because it has facilities for the elderly, nurseries, a number of caretakers, shops and leisure facilities. The community has been recreated, rather than simply bulldozed. I am not arguing that some high-rise flats do not need to come down—

they do, especially the jerry-built ones—but with good management and extra money some could be used to good effect.
One must be very careful when talking about planning. For a start, I have great sympathy with every councillor who is a member of a planning committee. In planning, as in transport, one cannot make the right decision. Whatever one does, one gets criticised by someone. One cannot please all the people. If one says no to an extra room in someone's loft, that will please all those who want to keep the street as it is, but it will upset all those who want an extra room for members of their family. If one tries to discourage the pebble-dashing of attractive brick buildings one gets all sorts of flak, although pebble-dashing spoils the line and design of houses.
We know, too, that what we think of as ugly or beautiful today may be seen in the opposite way in 50 or 100 years' time. I often wonder what people thought of some of the houses that were built a hundred years ago. Perhaps the rows of houses built in and around London were considered eyesores, although we are now busy protecting them and putting public money into repairing, renovating and maintaining them. One must be careful in talking about planning problems.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, and with Prince Charles. In the housing debate I seem to have God, in the form of the churches, on my side, and now I find the royal family on my side. I cannot help feeling that there must be some anxiety on the Conservative Benches about that. We have built many buildings which have spoilt the skyline and which have been bad to live in, but the Tory party must understand that that is because such buildings are cheap.
If one goes for the attractive buildings described by Conservative Members, one must acknowledge that it would be considerably more expensive to provide the office space needed. When the office space restrictions were reduced in London to allow more offices to be developed, those who wanted to build offices looked to high-rise buildings. Those who build offices do not build replicas of the Tower of London or the Egyptian pyramids. They build rectangular blocks, with variations in the outside decor.
The outside decor lends itself to system-build, which is sometimes very good, but sometimes—as we know from experience — it is disastrous. Some of our worst problems arise from system-build techniques which were not thought out properly and from buildings which were jerry-built by large companies who have left the local authorities, or indeed the Government, to pick up the bill.
Any large building company would provide a more attractive building if that was required. It would provide beautiful Victorian designs, but they would have to be paid for. That is where the market forces argument gets into difficulties. If two people compete to put up an office block, the occupiers of which are interested only in office space and its potential for office technology, they will not look with too much concern at the outside. That is where the role of local authorities becomes so important. Yet the Government have abolished local authorities, such as the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, or are undermining their general day-to-day work, and that is a fundamental mistake.
My final point is extremely important, not only in the general context of this debate, but in terms of the inner cities. It is probably true to say that a far greater force than


any political ideology of the day is the demographic movement within a country. The movement from the rural areas into the towns created our towns throughout the Victorian era and made Britain the first industrial power. We have only recently realised that the reverse is happening now. For the past 40 years there has been a dramatic movement from the cities to the country areas. That is producing an acute crisis in the inner cities and a serious crisis in rural areas. Millions of people are involved and London alone will lose another 1 million people by the turn of the century. Those 1 million people are likely to move to rural or semi-rural areas.
Between 1945 and 1950, the Labour Government planned many new houses and towns, and expanded towns. That was a good idea, which worked wonderfully, but it took from the inner cities the generation of people who would now be in their forties and fifties, perhaps at the peak of their earning power in economic terms, leaving the elderly trapped in the inner cities with the new people coming into the areas. In between those come the famous, or should I say infamous, yuppies, who are usually passing through, staying in an area for five or 10 years before moving out, or the very rich, with one home in the city and another, or perhaps more, elsewhere. That has produced the breakdown in the community that was accurately identified by the hon. Member for Selly Oak.
A community that is broken up in that way experiences problems with everyday services and produces a concentration of types of problems. There is a heavy population of the elderly and of young unskilled unemployed people with social problems. There is also a concentration of crime with its related problems, because it is often community links that prevent crime.
The other side of the coin is that in rural areas there are increasing requests for housing developments at the same time as local authorities there are being told either to sell council properties or not to build any more. When, in addition, people are looking for two homes, a housing crisis is created for people in rural areas who are seeking to buy or rent for the first time. Although that crisis is not as severe as in the inner cities, it is severe in personal terms for those concerned.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head in what he says about design and the outflow of millions of people from the inner cities to the countryside. The issue of this debate is how we can design homes that can be lived in well and which are sympathetic to the environment.

Mr. Soley: I understand that. The hon. Gentleman is right.
Successive Governments have attempted to deal with the inner-city problem before they have understood its full nature and extent. Britain needs a planning structure which allows local authorities to be more innovative; yes, to co-operate with the private sector—no one is arguing against that — and for the Government to have an oversight of its direction and movement.
In that context design becomes important. It puzzles me that nine out of 10 of the Royal Institute of British Architects design awards went to public or housing association housing. Only one out of 10 went to the private sector. Private sector design does not tend to be very good

unless it is up market. Somehow or other, we must deal much more effectively with some of the new build in the private sector.
Many Conservative Members have spoken, rightly, about the need to provide good quality homes. The problem is not just a lack of homes, but inappropriate or bad homes lived in by people with above-average health and education problems and several others that go with inadequate or poor housing.
We must consider the way in which we restructure and rebuild communities that are shifting and moving. That movement may be not as great as we think. Although it is great in numbers, it is only a small proportion of the movement that occurred during the last century. Interestingly, in some respects people now have far more problems when they move. It is not easy to sell a house in the north-east and buy one in the south. As a result, one might have to leave one's family down and go into bedand-breakfast accommodation or commute in some way to a job. There are many factors that we should consider more effectively in relation to planning and design, but housing is the major one.
Conservative Members are, to my mind, now moving in the right direction in rejecting the idea that the problems can be dealt with simply by market forces. The approach needs to be thought out. That means the Government, and especially the Secretary of State for the Environment, rethinking some of their ideas about the powers and duties of local authorities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call those hon. Members who have been rising, it might help the House if I say that I understand that the Front-Bench spokesman will seek to rise at just after 9.25 pm. I hope that in the time remaining hon. Members will tailor their speeches to about six or seven minutes each.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I shall be as quick as I can, Mr. Speaker and I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. This is not only an occasion for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves)—although I must congratulate him on the way in which he opened the debate. His predecessor would have been proud of him and of everything that he said. My remarks are directed to the effect of market forces on planning in inner-city, urban and rural areas, rather than to the design aspect which my hon. Friends have covered so well.
Land is a scarce resource. It is not like potatoes, because it cannot be grown or produced. Therefore, it requires special care. If our cities cannot accommodate people and provide homes in which they would wish to live, or be places in which they want to work, the rural areas must provide, in the way which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) clearly described. Therefore, in one sense urban and rural areas are interdependent.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams has a dual career, and I spent five years in an inner-city area, in Peckham in south London, which is why, in a smaller way, I have seen both ends of the spectrum. I must say how much I appreciated the comments made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who spoke largely and generously, as one would expect of a man who is large and generous. In some ways, he made a moving contribution to our debate and I congratulate him on it.
I see three problems — some of which have been touched on—against which our planning system should be tested. The first is the over-development of the rural areas. I shall not describe that because my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams illustrated that point absolutely rightly. The second is the failure to develop our cities in the way in which all hon. Members would like and the provision of accommodation that is unsatisfactory for many environmental and planning reasons. The third is the drift from the old, mainly manufacturing areas that are mainly, but not exclusively, in the north of the country, to the new mainly rural areas that are mainly in the south.
If our planning system does not attack those problems, we must re-examine that system. I maintain that our planning system is not resolving those three problems. In fact, it is developer-driven. In many respects, it is making the problems worse and needs radical reform. I have neither the time nor the wish to detail the type of reform that I should like, although I wish to make some brief points relating to it.
First, the Department of the Environment's circulars on housing are out of date and need to be completely rewritten. They often refer to demand, which of course is the market aspect of the motion. Demand is not true demand in the parts of the country that suffer from over-development. It is demand that is created by developers. That is why our planning system is developer-driven. The demand for homes is not that of indigenous people but of developers, who wish to build what they think they can sell in the short term. That is not true demand.
Secondly, planning circulars are not only out of date but ambiguous in many respects. Developers will say that the circulars give them the licence to create the kind of developments that destroy communities in the way that has been described.
Thirdly, we under-estimate developers' capabilities. They are some of the most sophisticated and capable businesses. They will work where we ask them to work. They have to work within rules, and they will need to be guided by tough rules, but they are highly able and have every resource and professional expertise that are available to them. We under-estimate the capability of the private sector developer to do something about inner cities in the way we want.
Fourthly, planning rules should enable us to provide local homes for local people, particularly in rural areas where planning restrictions have to be much greater than they are at the moment. Not everyone can be a home owner, and not everyone wishes to be. I am sorry to say that it will take years to recreate the private rented sector. Would that the Government had started much earlier on the task of recreating the private sector. I welcome the fact that we are now taking steps in that direction.
Fifthly, some kinds of development should be shunned altogether. Out-of-town shopping centres, which are out of character with our small towns, cities and villages, drain life from the high streets of our conurbations and are inappropriate in most parts of the country. They may suit the United States of America but they do not suit most of Great Britain.
We need a clear planning strategy that is agreed between national and local government and is enforced by local government, whose decisions will not be overturned by central Government. Central Government should not be in a position to overrule a settled and agreed plan. We have to identify housing growth and housing restraint areas in which development can or cannot take place outside the urban parts of our country. We can aim at only the highest standard of environment for our citizens in urban and rural areas. Because the subject matters to our people much more than any past Government have ever realised, I welcome the debate and urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to take note of the points that have been made to him.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: The theme of the debate has been that of getting the mix right. We have heard excellent contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), and for South Hams (Mr. Steen), as well as by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I pay a compliment to them. They all contributed something.
Birmingham had to develop dynamically after the bombs finished falling, when books such as "When We Build Again" were produced by the Cadburys and when there were 120,000 applicant families on housing waiting lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was chairman of the city's housing committee. Homeless families had to be accommodated and a formula had to be found. The formula was not always good. Some of the blocks that looked good on paper then proved to be monsters of maintenance and of quality destruction for those who lived in them — monsters that only accommodated three fifths of the people who were displaced from the Victorian artisan buildings left over from the bombs.
Then we got to grips with the beginnings of the new materials — such as the curtain walling which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hammersmith— and things that we did not know about, such as the tensile life of concrete, and the way in which spalling could take place, corroding metal and exploding concrete. All those things were discovered with the tragedy of Ronan Point. On top of all that, we found that the quality of life of the ordinary people who had to reside in those blocks, which in any event were beginning to collapse under certain conditions, was not appreciated. They wanted to be on the ground in their own housing units, with a bit of garden if possible. So we had produced at that time a dynamic city which had no soul. When the residents retreated into the tower blocks and the business did not return to the city centre, there was nothing left.
Beauty lies in the eye—even the royal eye—of the architectural beholder, as it does in any other. Much as I appreciate — as a past local president of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, one of the professional bodies to which I belong—the merits of palladian Georgian architecture, sometimes even those masses with their Doric, Corinthian or Ionian columns dressing front or rear do not look good when viewed from Buckingham Palace road. Perhaps the answer is a formulation of planning that we have spurned in this country. We have had the direction of local authority totalitarianism and all the planning that went with it,


which was extenuated under Skeffington and went on ad nauseam. We now have the dangers that have been mentioned of market forces operating through UDAs and UDCs, which only produce an economic formula which prohibits beauty.
Perhaps we should try to get the formula right. The planning formula might be a "once-only" type of planning permission—such as the Germans have—which is not in outline or detail, but which has elevational designs accompanying it so that it is final on approval. Perhaps everyone should be able quickly to appreciate whether a building is beautiful or not. When that filter of appreciation is inserted, we might well be able to create the sort of city centres—and middle and outer cities; they must be dealt with after the inner cities — which will grace our heritage, please our people and make for a pleasant centre for years to come.
We are lucky; we are being given a second bite at the cherry. In taking and savouring the fruit, let us ensure that that which we produce is not only in response to what is needed and based on the economically feasible, but is such as to beautify our land for ever.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I wish to express my congratulations on three counts. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on his success in being drawn so high in the ballot. He also deserves congratulations on his selection of subject. I do not believe that any hon. Member would fail to join me in congratulating him on his excellent speech, which introduced this important subject.
Having considered the issue of market forces in relation to building design and planning, we should be cautious in our comments about quantity surveyors, architects and town planners. In the final analysis, we have much to thank them for, for the good work that is being done.
We must not be too critical. The city of Birmingham seems to have dominated the debate. Before coming to the House, I spent three years of my professional life in work on the national exhibition centre. With one voice, hon. Members will applaud the excellent design of that centre and the market forces that created it. Eventually it created an airport, which created a station, which created a new environment, which created jobs.
Planners and architects have a responsibility not only for housing design but for jobs. Good design and good planning hold the key to creating good opportunities for increased prosperity in business and in industry and commerce. We are delighted to see those things in the west midlands, which last month had the highest drop in unemployment ever recorded. That shows a fast-moving regeneration of industry in the area.
However, the debate is about much more than that. The most important thing for hon. Members and for those who address themselves to the comments made in this debate is that we must always have a vision of people. If we ever lose that vision, we have lost everything. That vision must be held in connection with market forces and planning matters.
Hon. Members will be aware of my work in and affection for the parliamentary committee for the arts and heritage, of which I am vice-chairman. We must always be

careful when we develop an area in the centre of which is a listed building or a building of great historic value. In my tours of the country, I have seen wonderful buildings that are absolute treasures of our history. They are an inheritance and are being marred and scarred by the creation of other buildings that are completely out of touch with the setting. That makes me sad.
Hon. Members have talked about scale in connection with housing. I should like to mention one word that is coming through forcefully and I am confident that the Minister has taken note of it. The word is "quality". It is the quality of housing and design and the quality of life that we are passing on. I am not here just to say nice things. Therefore, I must draw the attention of the Minister to the tragic situation in the constituency which I have the honour to serve, especially the Tiled House lane area, which is disgraceful housing for our people. On a recent visit, the Minister had an opportunity to hear about the problems facing the people in that area.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to the quality of life, design and market forces, but there is something else that is beyond price—the community. We must cater for the work that is done by voluntary organisations, churches, youth clubs and the benefits of music and art. They are catered for, or should be, by those who have the ultimate power of planning. It is tragic to visit a town of 300,000 people that does not have a concert hall, an art gallery or a museum because the planners have not thought about those things. Before we start to talk about the integral parts of a community—the shops and other places where people carry out their interchange of business — such amenities should be provided. Against that background, I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the fabric of society that will be created by the planners to ensure a better quality of life.
Something else gives me particular pleasure this evening. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity in the House of paying a warm and generous tribute to the Minister for his outstanding work in the west midlands, and particularly his work in my constituency. I direct his attention to the events of 19 October this year when I was privileged to receive him in my constituency. Because of the foresight, initiative and involvement of the Government, he was able to announce the first urban regeneration grant awarded in this country, in the sum of £3·5 million. It was to heal the ravages and scars of 200 years of iron and steel production on 36 acres of the Round Oaks works in my constituency. I commend the Minister and the Government on their initiative. I pay a personal tribute to the Minister and, with the gift of prophecy, I ask him to return to my constituency in the near future to see the work and the stewardship of that money.

Mr. John Bowis: There has been something of a Birmingham male voice choir in this debate, and very sweetly it has sung. I wish to raise a slight note of discord in respect of the consensus with royalty this evening, and issue a small note of warning about views on architecture. I am delighted that one of the favourite pieces of architecture is in my constituency — the excellent Morgan's Walk development. We do well to encourage the private sector to use its imagination in architecture and


development and not to stifle it. We need good, beautiful design, but not as a constant and rather boring pattern which could be a danger if one were not careful.
When we consider city design, I hope that we shall be careful not to destroy what is underneath our cities. With modern buildings, particularly in the City of London, all too often we see pile-driving through Roman remains and some of our heritage, which we should encourage our planners to deter.
I am racing through these issues, watching the clock, so I shall be brief. Planners should consider river fronts. In London we have a potentially beautiful river front. Planning authorities should take the responsibility for the facing bank of the river. All too often, they cannot see what it looks like and residents on one side of the river look across to abysmal development on the other.
In my part of London—if I may bring the debate slightly further south— many high-rise blocks were put up as municipal housing in the 1960s and far too many problems have been caused by them. In new developments, we must ensure that crime is prevented by better design. We must have communal and play areas, neighbourhoods and neighbours. We need light, colour and space. We need trees, grass and gardens rather than walkways.
This has brought me to the moment when I must hand over to the Front Bench. However, in this brief message, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in rightly encouraging the speeding up of planning procedures, to encourage also the maintenance of standards of architecture and design.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am terrified to take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that we should have a competition for the worst designed building because the headquarters of the Department of the Environment in Marsham street might just qualify.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for giving me an opportunity to speak on a matter that is very dear to me. That is not solely because of my role in the Department of the Environment, but because, like all the people I meet, old and young, and from whatever background, I am deeply concerned about the quality of the environment. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn).
Perhaps people are concerned in the main not with the quality of the environment, but with the lack of quality. In that respect concern has been echoed in statements made recently by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I doubt that there has been any other occasion this century when there has been such widespread feeling about the need to raise the standard of building design. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green referred to the effects of market forces on building design. It will come as no surprise to him that I believe that we can achieve better design only if we give the market the opportunity that it is crying out for to respond to people's wishes and preferences without the constant frustration of control and regulation, with officialdom stating that it knows what is good. That must be the lesson that can be drawn from my hon. Friend's description of Birmingham in the 1960s.
I would not call that the effect of market forces. I call that the imposition of stereotypes of buildings to deal with problems speedily, as my hon. Friend the Member for

Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, without consideration for the quality of life, or the lack of it, which the people would then have to suffer as a result. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green described as "municipal madness" in his excellent maiden speech last week.
This is the opportunity to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I want to pick up his points about advisory committees of architects making their advice available at local level. That would not be a precedent. In the past, such bodies have been set up, especially in connection with conservation areas. There is no reason why they should not continue, and I believe that that is a good idea. However, it would be wrong for the Government to stipulate and lay down precise regulations to cover that. Local planning authorities must decide how to organise their development control function in a way that they believe is sensitive to local needs.
My view on the debate is based on simple empirical evidence. When I look round the towns, cities and the countryside, for which I have a great affection, and, whether I see a small market town that has evolved over a period of centuries, a northern city centre with its proud Victorian offices and commercial buildings, leafy arcadian suburbs built by speculative house builders in the 1920s or great landscaped parks, they seem plainly to be the expression of a free market going about its business with enthusiasm and vision. However, when I look around at the ghastly municipal offices, dreary council estates and comprehensive development inflicted on so many towns in the past 40 years, I must conclude that too rigid planning and regulation have reduced building design to a level that we have never experienced before.
Not only are buildings so alien in appearance that they are awarded abusive titles by those who suffer them—and the House is familiar with many of those expressions, such as "Alcatraz", "The Piggeries" and other similarly offensive terms. Many of the buildings are not only aesthetically dreadful; they are falling down. We are faced with an apparently endless catalogue of faults and failures for which in many cases the taxpayer must foot the bill. If they are not falling down, in many cases they are being destroyed by the very people they were planned to serve.
In the 1960s and 1970s mistakes arose out of a generally held but, I suspect, mistaken belief in the virtues of communal living and communal architecture. That is what I would call social architecture. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. Many of us were members of local authorities at that time and active in those councils. We are all to blame. This is not confined to one political party, and that point was missed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). He was not prepared on behalf of the Labour party to accept a share of the blame for what happened during that time. We were all to blame.
The truth is that developments place greater emphasis on shared facilities and less emphasis on opportunities for people to follow their own preferences. There was an idea that forcing people to adopt common values was somehow improving their situation. That attempt to impose communal values rather than private values through changing their environment has failed.
The tide is beginning to turn. I shall give the House a few examples. Not very far from the House of Commons, in docklands, there are numerous examples of high quality


architectural design and sensitive refurbishment of 19th century warehouses for residential and commercial uses. Notable refurbishment schemes include the New Concordia wharf residential conversion in Bermondsey, which has just won the RICS/Times conservation award, and the transformation of the grade I listed regency tobacco dock in Wapping as a new speciality shopping centre. Notable modern buildings include South Quay plaza, The Daily Telegraph offices, and LDDC's own offices at 84 St. Katharine's way, which won the 1985 London borough of Tower Hamlets design award.
Across the country, we encourage private sector involvement in refurbishing unpopular local authority estates. Some housing estates which were considerd uninhabitable have been purchased by developers and, in the hands of the private sector, transformed. One example of a successful scheme is in a local authority which adjoins my constituency on an estate in Bolton where 90 appalling flats were modernised by a private developer — 50 for sale and 40 for continuing renting by the local authority. This type of scheme usually brings properties on to the market at prices which are well within the reach of the first-time buyer.
Such schemes help to ensure that people live in the type of homes they want. The success of private house builders depends crucially on their ability to understand public demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams suggested, the variety within that public demand encourages rather than suppresses individuality.
Even where the private sector is not in the lead, more can be done on local authority estates to make housing provision more sensitive to the needs and wishes of those who live there. This is a key part of my Department's Estate Action programme. Estate Action has successfully begun to tackle some of the worst problems on some of the worst estates in Britain, aiming at more estate-based management, and improvements based on close and effective consultation with tenants. The Estate Action schemes announced today provide examples of what we are seeking to achieve. Tenants in Walsall and Leicester have been particularly closely involved in the development of proposals for their estates, and plans for establishing tenants' management co-operatives are being worked up. Through close consultation with those living in the estates, improvements can be devised which reflect their wishes and preferences.
Finally, in view of the shortage of time, I can only add that I do not believe that all regulation and control should be removed. There will always be the need for the community to set boundaries within which the market can operate, so long as those are clearly expressed.

Sport

Mr. Tom Pendry: I welcome the opportunity to debate, although it is a short debate, the important subject of sport. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will be the first to note that sport is a very important industry. It has something like £4·4 billion of expenditure, which is comparable to that of the electricity and gas industries. The Government have an income of about £2·4 billion by way of taxes, so we are not talking about a peripheral aspect of life. It employs about 376,000 people. Therefore, it is vital that the House welcomes the opportunity to speak in this, the Minister's first debate — we all congratulate him — since he took up his important role. The Minister is an important man, in charge of a vital department. We will see whether he deserves it from the response he gives to this and other speeches in the debate.
I begin with a quote, which is a good backdrop to the debate:
The air above Britain is dark with political footballs at the moment; it is a shame that sport is not one of them.
Those words were spoken by a top commentator at the height of the general election campaign earlier this year, despite the issue by the Labour party of a sports manifesto, an action plan for sport launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), me and others during the campaign.
Sport remains a political Cinderella on the election agenda and in the Government. It is only when tragedy or crisis occurs, such as at Bradford or Heysel, or when I have the luck to win the ballot in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, that the House addresses itself to sport and recreation. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that last March I initiated the longest debate on sport for approximately 20 years, yet the Government's response to the points made in the debate was pitiful. I hope that the aftermath of the debate tonight will be rather different and I hope that the Minister will survive the debate, as his predecessor did not survive the last one. We wish him well.
When the Minister was appointed, many of my hon. Friends wondered whether I had gone slightly off my head, because I had great hopes for him, and I still nurture one or two. I complimented him, inside and outside the House, and I still hope that I was right in my judgment. My right hon. Friend and I recognise that the Minister is on a learning curve, and if the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will allow him to listen now, perhaps he will get through the learning curve. The curve has taken a different shape.
If I correctly remember Bentham or Samuelson from my student days, the learning curve is fast becoming a backward sloping demand curve. Those hon. Members who are up on their economic theory will know that that is an inferior good. I hope that the Minister will not take this personally: I do not think he is inferior because of anything he has done or is capable of doing: it is because of people in his Department that until now we have not seen a great deal of support for him in fighting his corner. I am sure that the philistines in his Department who are superior to him are doing a great deal of damage to sport, and we expect him to stand up and fight his cause.
In certain areas of sport there is still happily a consensus. I share many concerns of the Minister, whose


responsibilities do not stop at sport. When my right hon. Friend had the Minister's post, he was chided for having many parts to his portfolio, but the Minister has more. He is in charge of water, and he is currently having a rough time in Committee at the hands of some of my hon. Friends. Part of his portfolio touches on sport, and he is becoming very unpopular in the water sports section. He was once a coxswain, so he was in water sports himself. The Minister's responsibilities are endless, covering environmental protection, historic buildings, royal palaces and the ordnance survey. We would like him to spend more time looking at problems in sport.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and I share the Minister's concern about drugs in sport. However, we do not agree with his heavy-handed approach to the problem. Let us consider the statistics. Last year, more than £400,000 was spent on drug abuse control, mainly through the centre at Chelsea college. That centre estimated that it needed an extra £125,000 to get up-to-date testing equipment. Of the 3,167 tests in 1986, only one was positive; 19 others were positive on the first test, but were not followed up with a second, confirmatory test. Given the time and money that is being spent, why was that? A sum of £400,000 is a lot to pay for just one positive test. We need education and the involvement of competitors rather than blanket testing.
I was further alarmed to read that the Prime Minister has called for a ban on the showing of snooker on television because of the so-called problem of beta blocker drugs. Did the Minister advise the Prime Minister on that? If he did not, why not? After all, he is the Minister responsible for sport. This is yet another example of the Government interfering in public broadcasting. That matter is also connected with the question of which drugs are used for cheating in sport. The Minister has leapt in, but he has left sport in a mess, with no clear direction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): If the hon. Gentleman has read the report written by Sebastian Coe and myself he will know that the statistics that he has given are inaccurate. Last year, out of a total number of 2,545 United Kingdom tests, some 41 substances were found.

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated assent.

Mr. Moynihan: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
At that stage, it was important and part of the policy that those positive cases were referred to the governing bodies for action. Action was reported to have been taken on one case only. In other words, 40 other positive cases were referred to the governing bodies about which the Chelsea college and the drug abuse advisory group have had no further information. That was a matter of great concern to Sebastian Coe and myself. For that reason, a whole new system was put in place. I hope that no hon. Member would minimise the serious importance of this issue and the need to take a firm line.

Mr. Pendry: I am grateful to the Minister for that long intervention. I am happy to correct the figures if I was wrong. However, the question remains: what is the Minister doing about the problem?
Perhaps the Minister can clear up certain questions, because there is a great deal of doubt within the athletics

world. Is it acceptable to use a drug because of a medical condition? If not, why not? Will competitors be banned after they have been caught taking Night Nurse prescribed for a cold? The evidence that I have read in the bulletin from the Institute of Medical Ethics showed that beta blockers had no effect if taken by top-level pistol shooters, and in fact led to a slight deterioration in performance. The use of drugs in sport is important. We wonder whether the Minister has adopted the right approach. Is it his top priority?

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger right on the problem. It is an acute problem for a number of athletes and snooker players whom I know. If competitors follow medical advice to take medication, for example by taking beta blockers, are they then said to be cheating?

Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that he will reply to both of us in due course.
Let me move on to what I would call Thatcherism in sport. I hinted at this earlier—the standard Tory attack on sport, the cutting of the annual grant to the Sports Council—[Interruption.]] I expected that response from Conservative Members. The present Government generally do not understand the difference between total amounts and percentage amounts —and anything else. They do not understand the level of grant per year. In real terms, grant has fallen in the past two years by 3.5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will correct me if I am wrong. We have had a lot of fun in Committee with the Minister's mathematics. We also had a lot of fun when he told the world that the Greenwich by-election would be won by the Conservatives. Now he has got it wrong again.
We want to know why, at the time of the cuts, a full-scale assault is being mounted on sport. The Tory manifesto in June of this year promised only continued work for the Sports Council, and the encouragement of excellence in sport. It said nothing about the wholesale demolition of sport as we see it today. The Green Paper on competitive tendering for sports facilities— on offer at the moment, before it is presumably railroaded into the Local Government Bill — shows clearly the Government's lack of understanding of the subject. 'The Minister has been strangely silent: he has tended to leave the poor Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to carry the can.
I see clearly, as I am sure most of my hon. Friends can, that the Government are keen that potentially profitable sports facilities should be hived off to the private sector, and that the facilities that are left should be subject to rigorous financial controls. The result, of course, is that many of the disadvantaged will be forced out of sport, to make way for yuppie business men with the ability to pay.

Mr. John Carlisle: Rubbish.

Mr. Pendry: It is true. I shall say more about it in a moment.
My own local authority of Tameside will be one of the first councils to face the attack. Six swimming pools and eight sport centres will be threatened. Maximisation of revenue will be called for, and sports halls will be full of flea markets, bingo and the like. My caring council runs youngsters' evening sessions at 10p a time to help young


people and, at the same time, to tackle the problem of juvenile delinquency. Collective action to oppose that is already under way. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has stated that town halls must be free to decide sports centres' access arrangements for the benefit of their communities. The Amateur Athletics Association has made it clear that many athletes, especially in inner cities, will be priced out of taking part in competitions. Again, that is something that Conservative Members must understand.
The Football Association opposes the proposals, saying:
The last thing we want is something that has the effect of putting up prices.
Most significantly, perhaps, the Amateur Swimming Association opposes the plan for compulsory tendering as "dangerous to both safety and the national interest." It is easy to see why, when we see examples of privatisation in action. In Wandsworth, the jewel in the Tory Thatcher crown, tenders were invited recently for the Latchmere leisure pool. Not one company was willing to "take the plunge". In Islington, the Sobell centre was run privately at such a loss that the council had first to subsidise it, and then to take it over completely. Where is that much-heralded private-sector efficiency?
Perhaps most damning of all in relation to the swimming lobby is the Camberly example. Anyone who goes there for an early-morning swim in the privately managed pool must sign a disclaimer to waive his rights, as there is only one member of staff on duty to cover the duties of opening, taking cash and life saving. That is the dangerous future world of private swimming under the present Government.
Every bit as worrying— I hope that the Minister is worried as well — is compulsory tendering. I do not know how many hon. Members were present when the Secretary of State for the Environment let something slip which the Under-Secretary confirmed in answer to a parliamentary question from me — that capital investment by local authorities in new sports facilities is to be curtailed. Given that local authorities have plans for expenditure of over £1,000 million on these facilities, they are going to be chopped.
So here we have it. The Minister will no doubt reply that a lot of this is mumbo-jumbo, that we have the facts wrong. He always does; in this he is typical of Ministers. But I must tell him that a number of points will be made to him in the course of the debate—far too many for a short debate like this. We ask the Minister to use his influence to stand up and fight the corner for sport by asking for a major debate in Government time, so that we can discuss the many and varied problems of sport today.
We have not exactly finished the honeymoon period with the Minister, but we are very close to doing so. We will give him other opportunities — and he has an opportunity tonight—to show that the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the Sports Council, for instance, instead of going to court to sort out their problems, can sort them out on the sports field, with the Minister as a referee.

Mr. Denis Howell: He is not qualified.

Mr. Pendry: Of course, we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath is the "permanent"

Minister for Sport; he is qualified as a referee and also as Minister for Sport. But the current Minister has a very big job to do. He cannot describe the Sports Council as an arm of his Department, because that is clearly against its charter. He must see to it that the CCPR and the Sports Council get together in the right climate to solve current problems. The courts are no place in which to solve such problems. The Minister really must stand up and be counted.
I am very happy to see that a number of hon. Members have come into the Chamber to take part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will answer their points at some length. He is looking desperately for support, and I understand that; but I want him to answer the points that will no doubt be raised in the debate. Sport is far too important to be regarded as just one of the many and varied parts of his portfolio. A lot of effort is needed on his part.
I am responding, Mr. Speaker, to your wish to be as brief as possible. Nevertheless, I hope that we will have some time to hear the Minister answer the points made in the debate. Sport is too important to be given just one and a half hours every two years or so. We ask the Minister to acknowledge the genuine desire of the House to debate sport at greater length. I hope that in his reply he will indicate that he has won the battle in the Department of the Environment to see that we have more time to discuss sport in future.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), as I serve on his football committee as his vice-chairman. I am sorry that he chose to be a little carping in his criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and of the Government's record. I suspect that it may be because we have in my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East an outstanding Minister, a man who has made his mark upon the sports world.
I suspect that there may be on the Opposition Benches just a little hesitation now that the almost permanent job that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) considered his own, whether in government or out, may be challenged and now that my hon. Friend, who has made such an outstanding contribution to the argument, is perhaps beginning to edge out, in the minds of the public and, perhaps most important, in the minds of sportspersons, the prowess formerly shown by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. That is why I am delighted to support him and to take part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is a well-known sports buff. He is right to ask for more time for sports debates, but I wonder whether the Opposition, in view of the generous time that they give to lost causes, would consider sport as a topic for debate on one of their allotted days. Judging by the attendance on the Opposition Benches tonight, there may be a better attendance for that debate than they get for the so-called important issues of health and other matters in parliamentary time. [Interruption.] I am unable to hear what the right hon. Member for Small Heath is saying, but I am sure that he will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
In the past few months my hon. Friend the Minister has made a refreshing sortie into sports matters. He has


bravely and fearlessly thrown himself into contentious issues. He addressed the playing fields issue, which has great support among hon. Members, and the House will know of my interest as I introduced a Bill on the subject. My hon. Friend trod where angels feared to tread. He has thrown himself into the drugs problem, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned, and I commend him for his bravery. His excellent initiative with Sebastian Coe made a tremendous contribution to the argument.
My hon. Friend has rightly reassessed the role of the Sports Council. I am surprised that the Opposition have not questioned the way in which the council spends the £38 million that it is allocated. We should question not the amount that it spends but the way in which it spends it. My hon. Friend has reopened that argument. It was ignored by the Opposition, who were pouring out their hearts and asking for more money.
My hon. Friend has also opened up the argument on sports and leisure centres, about which I shall say something in a moment. He has wisely supported sponsorship in sport and avoided the contentious issue of South Africa, which befell some of his predecessors and possibly caused them a great deal of distress and harm.
I have no hesitation in saying that we have a very fine Minister and I am glad to support him.
I shall take up one of two of the issues that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned: they have been prevalent recently, particularly at the Central Council of Physical Recreation conference that I was privileged to attend last week. The first concerns the basis for competitive tendering. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde inevitably went down the road that we would expect of a Labour Member now that someone is beginning to question how leisure and sports centres are run and whether ratepayers' and taxpayers' money is being spent in the right manner. We had the usual ritual of shouting and screaming about why we should leave well alone.
If all sports and leisure centres in Britain were run on an equitable and reasonable basis, if every ratepayer received value for money, and if sports and leisure centres were providing to local residents the excellent services for which they were designed, there would be little need for discussion in the House or for the type of consultation paper that my hon. Friend has put forward. Most of us know in our heart of hearts that that is not the case. Many sports and leisure centres could be run more efficiently.

Mr. Pendry: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Many sports and leisure centres could be improved, and I challenge the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde to say that they are so efficiently managed that there is no need for consultation about the effectiveness of their management.

Mr. Pendry: I gave some good examples of badly run private leisure centres. What we would like is some examples of badly run publicly owned leisure centres. If the hon. Gentleman can do that and comment on the examples I gave, there will be some validity in his argument. Up to now there has been a vacuum.

Mr. Carlisle: In public terms local authorities are reluctant to publish—[Interruption.]I am sure that the

hon. Member for Small Heath will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. It would be unusual if he did not in a debate on sport.
The other side of the argument is that in many cases ratepayers are funding sports and leisure centres. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde could tell me where there is a sports and leisure centre run by a local authority which is making such a healthy and substantial profit and giving such an excellent service to the community that the management is beyond reproach.

Mr. Pendry: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman on that.
My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we should be looking at the effective management of such centres. If it turns out that the majority of centres are efficiently run, which I doubt, and give good value for money, the exercise will have been worth while if only to prove that point. However, I think that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will understand that that is not necessarily the case in every centre. Why are we afraid of looking at those centres, testing the effectiveness of the management and, as my hon. Friend the Minister has proposed, possibly putting some parts of the service out to some form of private tender? It is extraordinary that, as soon as one mentions the word "privatisation", the Opposition throw up their hands in horror as if it was a policy that would be detrimental to the users. That is not true.
I remind the right hon. Member for Small Heath of the gentleman who, during the CCPR conference, talked about his leisure centre in Surrey where there was some input from the private sector and said that he had reported a profit in that year of £1.8 million. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that incident. He was there. He will remember that at that meeting, at which he and I spoke, there was not a consensus saying, "Hear, hear, that is happening with us." It was an isolated incident.

Mr. Denis Howell: It was an isolated case. Representatives from the whole of Great Britain were assembled at that conference and that was the only case that could be brought. Our point—the hon. Member for Luton, North, (Mr. Carlisle) has missed it — is that under the privatisation proposals every local authority sports centre will have its management privatised, whether it is good or bad.

Mr. Moynihan: No.

Mr. Howell: Oh yes, it will. Look at the proposals before the House now.

Mr. Carlisle: There is a dichotomy of view. My view is that every centre should be looked at, but my hon. Friend the Minister says that that should not be the case. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to reply on that matter.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath has confirmed my point and I am grateful to him for doing so. That was a lone voice at the conference. Therefore, it must be right to look at the effective management of the centres, ensure that we are getting value for money, and that the ratepayers are getting the service they deserve.

Mr. Peter Pike: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I am reluctant to give way but I will.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman believes that there should be tendering, as the present consultation document says is possible. Does he believe that after the consultation has taken place it would be right for an amendment to be tabled in the other place to the Local Government Bill or does he believe we should do the alternative which is that an amendment could be made to the Bill once it becomes an Act with an hour and a half's debate on an order? If the hon. Gentleman is confident of his subject, does he not agree that we should have a full debate in Government time to discuss the implications of such a policy before we embark upon it?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot be drawn into the intricacies of the passage of legislation through this House or in another place. I know that this argument will recur certainly in Committee and perhaps on the Floor of the House when the Bill is considered. I would not say that I totally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I have one last point on competitive tendering, which I wholly support. I wish to give the lie to the theory that the disadvantaged will suffer in this exercise. The consultation document makes it emphatically clear that the disadvantaged will not suffer. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Small Heath because he has heard this example before. When one of the sports centres in my constituency offered the unemployed entry at a privileged price, only one unemployed person took up the offer in the six months for which it was available. I know that other hon. Members will tell us that that is not the case in their constituencies. The fact that the offer was not taken up is not necessarily the fault of the disadvantaged; it is possibly the fault of the centre for not selling itself enough. That is what the consultation document is all about.
My second point on legislation relates to the Education Reform Bill. Now that the Bill is to go into Committee, we should try to increase the sport requirement in the curriculum from one to two hours a week. One hour is not enough. That move would find favour on both sides of the House; many Conservative Members would certainly support it.
I wish to refer to the basis of sponsorship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his initiatives, and particularly on his speech at the Institute of Sports Sponsorship two or three weeks ago. Conservative Members understand that sponsorship is a very important part of sport and should therefore by encouraged. Sponsorship must include sponsorship from any source engaged in a legitimate occupation. The House will know that I refer to tobacco sponsorship. I am pleased that agreement has been reached — albeit a somewhat loose agreement—with the tobacco companies. If money is available, it is essential that sport should be able to receive it.
Smoking is a legitimate occupation, as is the consumption of alcohol. It is nonsense to say that, while smoking is a legal occupation— pray God it will always be legal and that this House will never change that—the money available from tobacco companies should not go into sports sponsorship. I know that that statement causes Opposition Members some discomfort because it was mooted in their policy document before the general election that they would put an end to tobacco sponsorship in sport.
Thank goodness, Conservative Members believe that, while smoking is a legitimate occupation, the tobacco

companies should be allowed to sponsor sport. I commend my hon. Friend for his remark that if tobacco sponsorship is available, it should be used. It is used for the good of sport from top to bottom and I commend those tobacco companies that are no longer concentrating all their efforts at the top but are filtering them down—to use a pun—to the junior side. That must be to the good of sport.
I shall briefly touch on rating relief. My hon. Friend the Minister should understand the pressure now placed on many sports clubs by the high rating that they suffer. Conservative Members would urge that a fresh look be taken at discretionary grants. I know that some councils are reasonably generous—I say no more than that—but others are not. Even the 50 per cent. rating relief offered to some sports clubs is not enough. I should like to see rating relief become mandatory for some councils where the facilities that are being offered are obviously for the public good, as in many instances they are.
I shall not go through the list of various clubs that have applied to us as individual Members, and certainly to my hon. Friend the Minister, for assistance. I urge local authorities to look closely at such clubs. The latest is the Thames Scullers which has been levied some £4,000. That is an enormous sum for a club to find. In the many long years in his job, my hon. Friend may be able to persuade the Secretary of State that some sort of mandatory rating relief should be offered to sports clubs.
I commend my hon. Friend on the initiative that he has taken, and that his predecessor took with regard to football hooliganism, which, as most of us know, has nothing to do with football and everything to do with bad behaviour. We must be constantly alert to that problem. I am glad to see the initiatives that my hon. Friend has taken in support of those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Membership of clubs should be encouraged, and I say no more than that to avoid starting an argument about whether they should be mandatory. We should be constantly vigilant to the sort of penalties that should be available. We must not tolerate bad behaviour on the field as that is undoubtedly reflected in bad behaviour on the terraces.
As Ian Wooldridge said in the Daily Mail last week, it was a bad week for sport. There were disgraceful scenes at Wembley when one participant attacked the referee, when a large number of players were sent off the field, a record number of rugby players were sent off and there was much questioning of the umpire's decisions in a cricket match in another country. There is something wrong with sport when the decision of the umpire or the referee is challenged.
Last week Mr. Ted Croker said at the Central Council of Physical Recreation that footballers are almost beyond the law, and that is wrong. We in the House have a responsibility to tell sportsmen that if they transgress the law, as some players in Scotland may have done—I say no more than that because the case is sub judice—they must feel the full force of the law. It is not for football authorities to say otherwise.
This is a short debate. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, there should be more opportunity in Parliament to discuss sport, and most of us would support that. Over the past six months the Government have taken initiatives which have brought a welcome breath of fresh air to the sporting fields. For that I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and wish him well in the tasks ahead.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on introducing this topic at this time. I do not find myself in full agreement with the economic analysis with which he began, but that does not prevent my agreeing with much of what he said.
It is a particular pleasure for me to speak in a debate to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) might contribute. In 1965 he was generous enough—I shall not say farsighted enough—to appoint me to the United Kingdom Sports Council, of which he was then chairman. Although he and I did not agree about everything during that time, the contribution that he made then, and continues to make, to sport in the United Kingdom is unique. Despite the Minister's considerable efforts, I doubt whether he will ever overtake the right hon. Gentleman's contribution.
This is a curious time in sport, and not simply because England's cricketers are challenging the decisions of umpires in a foreign land. In my own sport of athletics there has never been more money than now in the form of appearance money and television fees. However, the British Amateur Athletic Board is bankrupt and the Amateur Athletics Association, which deals with England and Wales, has had to take on responsibility for the United Kingdom. A United Kingdom body to govern athletics, which has been argued for for the best part of 30 years, is coming about, or may come about, because of financial default rather than anything else.
I should like to refer to three elements of the Government's policy. Two of those elements are defective, and the third is, at the least open to question. This is an Adjournment debate and therefore the Standing Orders place certain restrictions on what one might or might not say. First, I do not find it difficult to argue with the Minister that the policy that the Government have adopted on drugs is not stringent enough. I urge him to read yet again—I am sure that he has read them at least once the reports in The Times on 19, 20 and 21 November 1987. In those full and extensive reports the extent to which drugs are available and used in sport is eloquently displayed, as is the extent to which profits can be made from their use and supply.
The reports demonstrate the inadequacy of the Government's policy, not least because the investigation that resulted in the convictions on which the reports were based came about at the insistence of inspectors from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No doubt they had a perfectly legitimate interest in effecting those investigations, but it seems curious that in an area that has such an effect on sport and on health it should be left to that Ministry to carry out the necessary work.
I submit that the policy that the Government must adopt is one that eliminates the use of drugs in sport. Those who take anabolic steroids are cheats. There can be no justification for doing so. Those who take such drugs run substantial risks to their health, risks which have been well documented and are without challenge. I must advise the Minister that although the initiatives that he and Mr. Sebastian Coe have taken may be admirable, action should not be left to the Sports Council alone. The Government should have a much clearer and more effective policy. At present, their policy would not justify either adjective.
Secondly, the conflict that exists between the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the Sports Council over the allocation of money by the Sports Council to the central council is one of the most wasteful demonstrations of misapplied energy that one could conceive of, and it is wasteful of effort and resources. The fact that lawyers are required means that money is going into lawyers' pockets that could better spent on sport in the United Kingdom. It is curious that those two bodies, which are made up of sportsmen, find themselves driven to legal arbitration to resolve their differences. I know that the Minister has condemned that, and he deserves our support for doing so, but he has stated in correspondence that he feels powerless to go beyond that. It is worth pointing out that the dispute between the CCPR and the Sports Council did not arise in the previous 12 months. It has been going on for a long time. The Goverment's policy is defective because it is not aimed at resolving those differences once and for all, and, most assuredly, those differences are wasteful and unnecessary.
The third element to which I wish to refer is that on which the Government's policy can be questioned. I refer to the form in which the Sports Council may hereafter be invited to conduct its affairs. This morning some hon. Members from Scotland met the new chairman and chief executive of the Scottish Sports Council. There is no doubt about their integrity or commitment of the chairman and chief executive to the cause of the sport in Scotland, but the form of the Scottish Sports Council had been changed in a substantial way. Several of its members are now executives of the sports council. I understand that that was done after consultation between the relevant Minister in Scotland, the outgoing chairman, the incoming chairman and Government Ministers, but it did not involve any consultation with sports bodies. To embark upon such a radical change in the constitution of the Scottish Sports Council, without proper consultation with the sporting bodies, seems to be a dangerous and unhappy precedent to establish.
I suspect that, just as the community charge was tried out north of the border and is to be introduced south of the border, what has happened in Scotland may be a preliminary to a similar approach with regard to the Sports Council that functions south of the Tweed. I do not take the view that such a change will necessarily he to the detriment of sport, but it is at least questionable whether a Sports Council in the form that has been approved in Scotland will have the most beneficial influence in the cause of sport in the United Kingdom.
All those who have spoken and who are about to speak in the debate underline the importance of sport in our community. Eight years into this Government's life it can fairly be said that their sports policies lack direction and cohesion. The sooner such defects are remedied, the better.

10 26 pm

Mr. Alan Meale: I also welcome the opportunity to debate sport, but I have to say it is about time. As has already been pointed out, it is about nine months since the last sports debate. The Library records show that the last serious debate in the Chamber on the subject of sport took place in 1984. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that the House regularly denies sport the recognition and attention that it deserves. What is worse,


it affords parliamentary time to sport only when matters of concern arise. We have seen examples of that time and again.
An example relates to football. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about football hooligans. Football hooliganism was taken seriously only after the Heysel stadium tragedy. It is nonsense to suggest that the Government's firm policy against hooliganism — to issue plastic membership cards — was correct. I must be straightforward in this respect. Most people who go to football matches do not carry a plastic card. It is nonsense to try to pretend that they would do so purely to get into football grounds.
The state of football grounds is another relevant matter. The Government responded only after the tragic deaths of more than 50 people in the Bradford stadium disaster. They have not responded with any satisfactory solution. Many second, third and fourth division teams now have serious problems at their grounds. My constituency has a third division football club. One side of its ground is closed through lack of finance and help to repair it. I am not talking about an unsuccessful football club. Last year, Mansfield town football team appeared at Wembley and won the Freight Rover trophy. We are not talking about a club in the third division that spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on players. Mansfield Town has brought 11 youngsters from its youth policy into the first team this year. A solution has not yet been brought forward by the Government.
Let us discuss some other aspects of sport to which the hon. Members pay little attention. Tens of millions of spectators of sports of all kinds follow them on the television, in the newspapers or on the radio. They follow all sports — football, cycling, motor racing and many others. Hundreds of thousands of employees are involved as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde pointed out. Many of them work on low pay in appalling conditions, doing so purely for the love of their sport. For an example of that, one has only to look at the large industry of horse racing, in which stable staff work long hours on low wages in bad conditions. Some of them have to live in bad conditions just to hold their jobs, with little job security or insurance, and few pension rights.
There are millions of participants in sport. Schoolchildren, people in and out of work and people of all age groups take part. Most of them never win a medal of any sort. Supporters in their millions stand on the terraces and in fields and travel miles on buses and in their own cars, just to spend all their spare cash trying to support sport. Billions of pounds are involved in the financing of sport, and the money raised from it is connected with such items as running costs, equipment, sponsorship, gate receipts, advertising and TV and radio broadcasting. All these matters have to do with sport, yet we give them little time here.
As my hon. Friend also pointed out, in 1986 there was an overall reduction of £349,000 in the budget for sport. But leisure time and unemployment have increased because of the Government's policies since 1979.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Meale: I shall not give way.
The Government put a grand total of £37 million into sport—less than one fifth of a penny per head of the

population per day is spent on the sport budget, which is a disgrace. Sport raises billions of pounds of financing in any one year. Much of that money is paid back to the Government indirectly through taxation and other means.
The Government should fully recognise the importance of sport in modern society. They should recognise the role it plays in entertaining the population, and its value to them socially and financially. I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 319—it has already been signed by more than 130 hon. Members—which calls for a Select Committee on Sport. That would allow the House to examine on an on-going basis the state of sport in Britain.
Rather than sitting back and debating it once every nine months, two years or five years, we should get seriously involved in talking about sport in the Chamber. It is not good enough to ask why the horse has bolted after the stable door has been left open. It is our responsibility to the millions who participate in sport and support it to do the same.
A Committee of the type I have mentioned would also allow hon. Members to examine other interests and concerns in sport. The ownership of football clubs, for instance, has recently been regularly discussed in the press. Is it right for one person to own 15 per cent. of the first division? If we include Liverpool and Everton, is it right for two families to own 25 per cent. of the first division?
Some hon. Members spoke about sponsorship. Perhaps they should be debated in the House, along with whether it is correct for breweries and cigarette companies to participate in sponsorship on a large scale. Sunday racing is about to be discussed in the other place and quite soon in this House by way of a private Member's Bill. Perhaps we should talk about the interests in that industry, about the people who work in it in appalling conditions and about what that will mean to our society. We should also discuss what kind of relationship it has with the Shops Bill that was recently rejected by the House.
We could also discuss the general overall financing of sport to see if we can find ways in which we could get greater amounts of money into sport and greater participation in sport. The hon. Member for Luton, North spoke about privatisation under the new Local Government Bill. Perhaps I should give him a few facts about that. The discussion paper says:
The proposals in the consultation paper apply to such facilities as sports centres, leisure centres, swimming pools, golf courses, bowling greens, putting greens, tennis courts, athletics tracks, pitches for team and other games, cycle tracks, water sports, artificial ski slopes, skating rinks, indoor bowling arenas and beaches.
That Bill and the management functions that it seeks to privatise will affect the vast majority of our people. It takes into account:
the taking of bookings, the collection and accounting for fees and charges, cleaning and maintaining buildings, grounds, sports services, plants and equipment, supervising activities, life guards at swimming pools, providing instruction in sport and recreational activities offered, catering and the provision of refreshments, provision and hire of sports and other equipment, paying for heating, lighting and other service charges and securing premises.
That is not a minute minority approach, nor is it —[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Luton, North willing to listen?

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own side.

Mr. Meale: It is about time that the House started to take sport seriously. The greatest expression of the lack of such interest is what has gone on in the debate and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber. Only a handful of Conservative Members were willing to come forward and argue on behalf of sport, despite its massive support in Britain and the massive financial support that it attracts. I urgently request the Minister to come forward with some positive measures and methods that will help us to go forward an give the British people the support they need for their sports.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall be brief and will try not to cover any ground that has already been covered. The Opposition have given a genuine illustration of the concern that we feel about sport and our enthusiasm for it. We have also demonstrated our belief that the House should pay a great deal more legislative attention to sport.
Sadly, the only contribution from the Tory Back Benches was an impassioned piece of lobbying for the tobacco industry, with a plug for South Africa thrown in in passing. That speaks volumes for the Tory attitude to sport. There was nothing very Olympian about the speech by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I suspect that he was inspired by the excellent episode of "Yes, Minister" in which the coughing and spluttering lobbyist for the tobacco industry was suddenly metamorphised into the Minister with responsibility for sport.
In speaking about sponsorship, I could not take a more diametrically opposite view to that expressed by the hon. Member for Luton, North. There is a total contradiction in allowing the alcohol and tobacco industries to parasite off sport for profit and at the same time contribute directly to the promotion of ill health among the population, more than cancelling out the efforts to promote health through bodies such as the sports councils. Several of us were told at a meeting this morning with the Scottish Sports Council that the council would welcome legislative guidelines within which to operate on sponsorship.
The key to this is the relationship with the television companies. At present it is a corrupt relationship because the brewers and tobacco companies put money into sport only because of the television exposure that they can achieve. There is something fundamentally corrupt—and it certainly has nothing to do with the promotion of sport— when top-class football clubs are inspired by greed rather than need, taking money from breweries, which in turn promote their products through their association with sport.
There is something sick about the fact that in many British cities children will be running about with the names of breweries' products tattooed on their football strips, thus identifying from the earliest age sport and their heroes in sport with alcohol, alcohol being one of the antitheses of good health. That is happening, and it will happen more as a result of the sponsorship deals announced last week.
The Government should act on this matter. Sponsorship is here to stay, but, for goodness sake, surely it can be common cause that the brewers and tobacco companies should not be allowed to use sport for purposes which anyone who cares about sport and the good health of the nation must unite in deploring, a category from whom I exclude the hon. Member for Luton, North.
The level of debate about sport in Britain should be raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is one of the few with a vision of what sport could contribute to the nation on a far greater scale than we have seen in the past. One need only visit housing estates where poverty, frustration, unemployment and anti-social behaviour exist to find manifold evidence of how one can transform behaviour, attitudes and prospects by giving people the leisure facilities with which to operate. If we had real vision, we would be talking about one major sports centre for every 20,000 people in society. Indeed, we would be speaking not of public spending but of investment — of substitute expenditure—because money spent in that way would avoid much wasteful expenditure elsewhere.
I have some involvement with the football players' union in Scotland. It is regrettable that Scottish footballers, almost uniquely among footballers in western Europe, receive not a penny from the televising of their sport. There is, in my view, something approaching a corrupt cartel between the television companies in Britain in their dealings with the football leagues. I understand that in France the television companies pay £18 million each season for the televising of the sport. In this country the sum is £2 million. In England at least the players get some of that. In Scotland the players get none of the money paid by the television companies. That must be wrong because the entertainment would not exist without the players.
I support the call for a Select Committee and the argument that the various aspects of sport should not be lumped together with water and so on, under one Department. Let us take sport seriously. It is not a side issue. It should be a central issue in transforming the prospects of many of our people.

Mr. Denis Howell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on his initiative in securing this rare debate on sport. I endorse the plea that sport, which is a social service as well as a recreation, should be debated much more often by the House.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, even the solitary Conservative Back-Bench Member, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The hon. Gentleman stood out like a sore thumb in the debate, but he often does, so I do not suppose he is worried about it.
I especially want to thank the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who was a distinguished athlete, for his contribution. I am glad to say that his speech justified the fact that I appointed him to the Sports Council 20-odd years ago and that he is maintaining his interest in the subject. I am also grateful for the other contributions from my hon. Friends about the importance of sport.
In a short debate like this all that I can do is to go through a catalogue of issues. I intend to do that to demonstrate that we need to spend more time debating them. It is not possible to argue the case for all the points that I want to raise, but if I put down a marker we might make progress in future.
I agree that the Minister has been very enthusiastic arid energetic in his first six months in his new job, and I congratulate him on that. However, some people in sport


are becoming worried about the content of his contribution and where he is taking us with his great enthusiasm. Sport is being treated disgracefully in this country with regard to Government contributions. Indeed that even applied during my time as the Minister responsible for sport. That is obvious when the contribution for sport is compared with that for the Arts Council. The Minister must do what some of us tried to do. This is as much my responsibility as it is his, and I am not making a particular complaint. It is wrong that the Arts Council should receive a grant of £894 million from 1982–83 to 1987–80. Since 1982–83 the Arts Council grant has increased by 67 per cent. The Sports Council has received only £248 million—an increase of 27 per cent. In grant. That shows the disparity that exists. I had to face the mandarins in Whitehall and the Treasury. They go to Covent Garden and the National Theatre. They may be interested in sport, but we never see them at Wembley, although we may occasionally see them at Wimbledon. It is wrong that we should reflect our concern about the cultural pursuits of the masses in the difference in funding between the Arts Council and the Sports Council. If the Minister does nothing else, will he try to get Treasury approval for the same sponsorship scheme pound for pound up to £10,000 to encourage small time sponsorship that is enjoyed by the Arts Council?
I want to consider the affairs of the Scottish Sports Council. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East for raising this point. We are moving towards the corporate organisation of sport. Without any consultation, the size of the Scottish Sports Council has been halved. Six members of the staff have been made full members of the council and the director has been made the vice-chairman. There are so many questions to ask about that. Does the Minister intend to follow that course in this country? Is it impossible to conceive that the five junior members of the Scottish Sports Council will now take an independent line—as required by the royal charter—distinct from their boss? That situation is ludicrous. I believe that what has happened is unlawful. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to look into this matter. Even if he knows nothing about Scottish affairs, I hope that he will at least kindly agree to investigate.
Clause 7(5) of the royal charter states:
The Council may not make any payment or remuneration for services as a member.
Clause 7(6) limits that by saying that it may give remuneration to the chairman and vice-chairman. That means that the other five members cannot be paid. Those five members, who are now on the staff of the Sports Council, must be working for nothing under the royal charter. If they are being paid, the royal charter is being abrogated, and it is unlawful. I hope that the Minister will look into that.
I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Luton, North about education: that we should not reduce the hours of physical education in schools from two to one per week, as has been proposed. All sport depends on the base created in schools. Nor should we follow the position in Scotland, where teachers are contracted to work for 1,238 hours and will not turn out on Saturday mornings or other times outside school hours voluntarily to supervise sport,

because the Secretary os State for Scotland and the Minister with responsibility for education have forced them into that ludicrous position.
The cutbacks in education are alarming. Swimming lessons in schools have been reduced by 35 per cent. since 1980, and charges for swimming lessons have gone up by 25 per cent. since 1985–86. Evening classes are down by 20 per cent., and we are selling off the playing fields at an enormous rate. The effect of schools opting out on the dual use proposals in the Education Reform Bill will be absolutely appalling. How will facilities be provided for dual use to the community by schools which have opted out? We are totally in the hands of school governors and headmasters.
Privatisation has been mentioned. Under privatisation, the local authority will have to hand over the management services to private enterprise. The Minister earlier interjected and said "No", so I hope he will tell us the criteria under which local authorities will be allowed to retain the management. It is proposed that local authorities will be left to pay the loan charges on sports centres, swimming baths, golf courses, football pitches, and so on. They will have to maintain the fabric and pay a fee to a management firm. If that is not bad enough for the existing facilities, no local authority will ever build another sports centre, faced with those ludicrous impositions. If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy us otherwise, we shall be grateful.
The poll tax has hardly been mentioned, but its effect on racing alone will be enormous. All stable boys in the racing industry and people employed in sport will have to pay the poll tax, which will have an adverse effect.
The acceptance of decisions by referees and umpires has cropped up. I say to the English football team, Mr. Ted Croker and all footballers that sport can only be run on the basis that the referee always must be right, even when he is wrong. I say that as a referee of 20 years. I made many mistakes, but not half as many as the players I was refereeing, who never seemed to acknowledge any. We must support the authority of the umpire or referee.
The action of the Government will endanger the prospect of this country ever again holding international festivals of sport, such as the Olympic Games or Commonwealth Games. The World Student Games are being held in Sheffield, and I congratulate the organisers on that, but the Government are imposing burdens on them. The Minister went to Sheffield the other day and told them that they would not get a penny, and neither Cardiff nor Birmingham will get a penny.
I was the president of the group that tried to get the Olympic Games for Birmingham and every competitor for hosting those games was receiving massive subsidies from its Government. If the Minister wants international festivals of sport, he should not impose burdens on those cities that are trying to attract such sporting events.
The Government will not raise the cash limits so that necessary facilities can be provided for such events without being at the expense of the other things that local authorities must provide. I beg the Minister—even if he cannot provide the money as he should — to tell his Department that if local authorities build Olympic-size swimming pools, athletics tracks and sports halls to attract the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, they should be given a special allowance so that such building is not at the expense of old people's homes, schools and housing that local authorities must provide. That is a sensible


suggestion and I know that the hon. Member for Luton, North agrees because he did so last week when we appeared in Birmingham together.
I must tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Luton, North that if we are to get the nations of Africa and Asia to vote for us to host the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games, we should not be in a minority of one at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences. Such a position has a cause and effect, and I felt the effect when campaigning for Birmingham. I am sure that Cardiff will likewise suffer. However, I wish Cardiff every success in its bid to host the Commonwealth Games. I hope that the Government will give that city some help and enable it to build the necessary facilities without imposing cash limits.
Sport is vital. I believe that it is a social service and should be seen as such. It affects the lives of almost all citizens. In the past six months I have been saddened that the Minister, despite of all his energy and enthusiasm, has not acted in the areas that I have mentioned, particularly in regard to education, local government and privatisation, in a manner that would encourage all our citizens to participate in a healthy and important recreation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I have been left with a short time in which to reply and I hope that all hon. Members will forgive me if I cannot enter into a long debate, but I will attempt to respond to specific points.
I stand at the Dispatch Box for the first time and I should like to take the opportunity to recognise the significant contribution to sport by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). That sentiment has been echoed by other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman has made an enormous contribution to sport and his efforts are greatly respected by all hon. Members.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on the last point of his speech. In my first six months at the Department, I have tried, with much effort and as energetically as possible, to take sport from the Back Benches and give it a higher profile. I have attempted to ensure that sport is recognised as playing an important part in the regeneration of our inner cities. I have also attempted to tackle some of the substantive issues in sport.
In response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I intend to consider policy so that we may introduce the right policies and the right framework for the 1990s. I will not shirk that duty, but it will not he easy. It will be difficult to recognise and come to terms with the dissatisfaction that many people will feel in the world of sport when the existing policies and framework are challenged. I intend to ensure that the open letter that I have written to the Sports Council will form the basis for the debate on those matters. I hope that an extensive consultation exercise will take place when considering those matters.
Without making a qualitative judgment on the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, it is deeply regrettable that the Central Council of Physical Recreation has felt that it should initiate an arbitration process—at substantial cost to its budget and the budget of the Sports Council. The Sports Council is also spending a great deal of money on legal fees. It is terribly sad when money is being spent on legal fees when it should be spent on the development of sport

and recreation in the country. I know that hon. Members who are well versed in the subject are aware that I am not in a position to intervene—it is a matter for arbitration between the two bodies—but it is sad for sport when the money is spent on legal fees rather than on the development of sport and recreation.
A number of comments were made on the current position of the Scottish Sports Council. With a private secretary and an assistant private secretary both of whom come from Scotland, and who brief me regularly on all matters relating to Scottish sport, I have found that the subject has dominated conversation—and, of course, is one in which I am well briefed, although I have no departmental responsibility. I was asked specifically whether I could take points on board and bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. That I shall certainly do.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred to authority, and respect for authority, in sport. I wholeheartedly endorse his points. There must be strong respect for referee, umpire or judge, and for the rules and regulations of sport. No sportsman is above the law. It is also vital that every sportsman must respect the rules of his governing body, and respect authority in his sport. The flouting of that authority cannot be excused in any circumstances.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on his success in securing a debate on this subject. His interest in, and commitment to, sport are well known. As many of us are aware, his own sporting achievements in boxing—albeit some time ago—are worthy of note. More recently, the hon. Member has taken a close and constructive interest in the future well-being of football.
It has been clear to me from the debate this evening that there is no doubt, on either side of the House, about sport's tremendous potential for enhancing the lives and health of individuals and communities. It is one of the few activities in life which recognises no barriers of age, ability, creed or origin. Sport has a wide range of benefits to offer everyone, from childhood to retirement. Moreover, I am pleased that we all recognise the considerable scope that sport offers at the highest level of participation and competition to boost the nation's status and reputation. However, it is equally clear from the debate that there is more than one view about how best the future development and prosperity of sport in our country can be ensured.
Let me be very clear about my position on a number of points that have been raised. Both inside and, I regret to say, sometimes outside the House, there has been some misinterpretation of the position that I have taken. The Government, first and foremost, remain fully committed to a continuing role for the public sector in sport. The level of grant has increased by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to power, and we have secured for next year an increase in grant of nearly £2 million for the Sports Council, which I worked hard to achieve. That is an important contribution, and has been welcomed by the Sports Council. Our proposals for bringing competition to the management of local authority sports facilities are designed to improve their management—to the benefit of the needs of communities, including disadvantaged groups and promising sportsmen and


sportswomen—not to deprive them of opportunities. We are also determined to maintain the importance of sport in schools.
We are absolutely committed to assisting the future well-being of sport through our policy. I make no apology for repeating my three aims, which are to improve the nation's health, to alleviate social deprivation and to help promote sporting excellence at national and international level. The Government could not possibly hope to meet those aims by pursuing policies that preclude any public-sector financial support for sport, or by declining to exert other than financial influence, wherever possible and wherever appropriate.
Of course, the nature of sport in Britain is such that the Government's direct role is limited. We have an enviable tradition of voluntary and independent effort. That is seen not only with regard to the recent growth of the Sports Aid Foundation and the Sports Aid Trust, but in the substantial increase in sponsorship for sport, which hon. Members have mentioned. I do not believe that anyone with an interest in sport would wish it to be any different in the future. We must not only develop the voluntary and independent effort, but put all our powers and energies into ensuring that more money comes into sport through sponsorship and the private sector. That is why I have welcomed on several occasions—I am glad that I have the opportunity to do so again this evening — the importance of the Sports Council's contribution, and have worked to ensure that next year that contribution is increased.
I have mentioned my letter to John Smith, the chairman of the Sports Council, in which I identified some of the issues that need to be considered. Two points are particularly relevant. First, are we striking the right balance between sporting excellence and wider particip-tion? That brings into question the structure and provision of sport and recreation in this country. Secondly, are we doing enough to promote private-sector investment in sport? As I have said many times, I believe that we could do much more. I say that as a former sportsman who spent a good deal of time trying to raise private-sector money. I also recognise that much more clarity could be brought to the system, thus bringing the interests of potential sponsors to meet those of governing bodies and sports that need money.
But this must be not just at the top level of sport. What is required is a package approach to sponsorship, ensuring that the money coming into that governing body comes right the way down to the grass roots, rather than just assisting those at the very highest level of sport. I continue to emphasise what I have termed the package approach, and take every opportunity to persuade not only sponsors but governing bodies to see what more they can do about it.
On the subject of education, there is a clear misunderstanding, I regret to say, about the curriculum. The importance of physical education and sport in the overall development of children is recognised by our position over the core curriculum, and I must emphasise the importance that, I and the Government, attach to PE. The fact that it has been included as a foundation subject in the national curriculum is a very important first step.
A PE working group will be established in due course to make recommendations about the content of PE programmes and guidelines about what children should be expected to achieve at particular ages. The group's recommendations will be the subject of further consultation by the National Curriculum Council. Although the content of PE programmes will be the subject of secondary legislation, there is no intention to prescribe the amount of curriculum time to be devoted to PE or any other subject.
Our competitive tendering proposals are still the subject of public consultation and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that process. I would, however, like to clarify one or two important matters, which seem to have caused a degree of uncertainty and some misguided comment.
The aim of the proposals is to bring about more effective management and marketing of local sport and recreation facilities and a greater sensitivity to the needs of communties. The proposals specifically recognise the need for disadvantaged groups to retain the opportunity to make full use of sports facilities, even it they are managed by private companies. This has happened many times, where the private sector is already managing sports facilities for local authorities—Babergh district council, Basingstoke and Dean district council, Surrey Heath, Vale of White Horse, Windsor and Maidenhead district council, Wokingham— all examples where the needs of the disabled, unemployed and disadvantaged groups have been very much taken into account.
It is because of the experience in the private sector that this has been incorporated into the consultation document; and we specifically recognise the importance of the need of disadvantaged groups to retain the opportunity of making full use of sports facilities, even if they are managed by private companies. The proposals do not preclude a continuing level of local authority subsidy where appropriate. They do not preclude local authority employees continuing to manage facilities where they are able to bid successfully for the contract.
Perhaps most important of all, the proposals do not suggest anything which is not already working perfectly well. A number of local authorities already use private sector companies to manage facilities; some have even adopted these arrangements by agreeing free use of facilities by disadvantaged groups and by promising young sportsmen and women for training purposes.

Radioactive Waste Disposal

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We are very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to air a matter of considerable concern to the residents of Gwynedd and elsewhere. I am referring to the proposals by Nirex for the disposal of low — and intermediate-level radioactive waste. It is a matter of particular relevance to my two colleagues and me who, as Gwynedd Members, must live with a continuing nuclear dimension. We must face several questions that arise: the safety of existing nucler power stations, of which we have two in our own county; the implications of eventual decommissioning, should that occur, or, alternatively, the implications of new reactors; the dangers of pollution in the Irish sea, a sea that is, they say, the most radioactive in the world; and the effect of raidoactivity on agriculture, and we are the county that still lives under the cloud of Chernobyl, with so many farmers still suffering from its effects on their sheep flocks.
The question of the disposal of nuclear waste has recently come to the fore. It is a matter of concern to my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and to Scottish Labour members. The possible disposal of nuclear waste in north-east Scotland in particular, and in the islands, was highlighted in the most recent Nirex report. That is why all six Plaid Cymru and SNP Members put in for this debate.
I have a constituency interest in this issue, although from the original Nirex map the position could easily have been misunderstood. The only area in Wales that is identified on the map—it is on page 25 of its document, "The Way Forward" — as a possible area for the disposal of nuclear waste is Ynys Môn, the Isle of Anglesey. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) received a letter dated 25 November from Mr. P. T. McInerney, the managing director of United Kingdom Nirex Ltd., that it became apparent that the map should have contained a part of the Gwynedd mainland on the Lleyn peninsula. As my constituents have become aware of this threat they have understandably demonstrated their strong feelings about it, as have those in Ynys Môn. At a meeting in Llangefni several hundred people voiced their opposition to the possibility of nuclear waste being dumped on the island. It is a matter on which people understandably feel very strongly.
On the first page of its consultation document Nirex says:
The Government is responsible for the national strategy for the management of all readioactive waste. The task of UK Nirex Ltd. is to implement Government strategy.
I am glad that we have been able to raise this matter and ask the Government to respond to it.
This is a matter of concern to me, not only from a constituency point of view, but as someone who, before entering the House, was fortunate to take a physics degree at Manchester university when Professor Flowers was the professor of physics there. In the 1960s I worked for a short period on the construction of Trawsfynydd power station. At that time people felt that although we may not have known all the answers, the march of science and technology would resolve the problems in due course; that even if at that time we did not know what to do with

nuclear waste, something would be worked out in due course; and that even if we did not know at that time how to decommission a nuclear power station, something would be worked out in due course.
The reality is that that has not happened. Some 25 years later we still do not know the answers to those problems. That is what causes me, as a one-time scientist, to start doubting whether we should be marching on with nuclear technology before we have worked out the answers to those questions. Perhaps we should stop proliferating the environmental threats and stop diversifying the types of nuclear installations. At the least, until there are answers to these questions, we should stand still on these matters. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, the nuclear programme must inevitably be reconsidered.
Responsibility for nuclear waste rests with the Government, as they dictate nuclear strategy to Nirex. We must ask, in the context of Wales, who is responsible for policy on the disposal of nuclear waste in Wales? Environmental decisions have been devolved to the Welsh Office. Therefore, one would expect it to have responsibility for their issues. We know that the Department of the Environment is taking the lead in London, but does the Scottish Office have responsibility for Scotland? Does the Department of Energy have a major say in these decisions? In this short debate we ought to have some answers to that question from whichever Minister replies. It looks as if it will be the Minister with responsibility for sport, which casts an intriguing light on the question of ministerial responsibility for this important matter.
We also want to know the role of local authorities in such questions. District councils have a responsibility for environmental health and for refuse disposal. Are they to be totally ignored when it comes to decisions on the disposal of nuclear waste? County councils have a broad planning responsibility. To a large extent they are responsible for road transport, which is significantly involved in the disposal of nuclear waste. They are also responsible for emergencies within their areas, but are they to be overruled? Is public opinion to be overruled? Will decisions to be taken centrally in the interest of the Government, Nirex and the nuclear industry, even though that may cut across the interests of the people and the communities that the councils serve?
In the introductory chapter of its document "The Way Forward" Nirex says:
Nirex, in considering its design and location must take into account many factors; the most important of these are safety, technical feasibility and public acceptability.
Public acceptability must be fundamental to any decisions that are taken, otherwise we will go down an unacceptable road. Any proposals for disposing of nuclear waste must take that on board.
No convincing reasons have so far been given by the Government and Nirex as to why they abandoned plans for a near-surface disposal site for low-level waste at Bradwell, Elstow, Fulbeck and South Killingholme. The decision was described by "Plaintalk", Nirex's newsletter, as a "shock decision" and a "surprise decision." The same issue of "Plaintalk" gave two reasons for the change in "economic costings", which allegedly led to the decision: first, a technical reason, that more money was needed for research on such sites; and, secondly, that there had been a "change in public perception", which had


dramatically increased the projected unit cost for disposing of low-level waste in such a facility.
Surely, if research needs to be undertaken on the options open to us, funds must be made available. Surely they should have been made available before now. When making his statement on 1 May the Secretary of State reiterated his belief that shallow disposal sites are safe. If that is his true belief and the change of course outlined in the statement was not merely an electoral ploy, it is scandalous that a lack of funds for research caused that option to be put on one side. It is the lack of research that leads to the greatest apprehension over the plans of the Government and Nirex for waste disposal, especially deep-site disposal.
As recently as 1985–86 the Select Committee on the Environment stated:
There is no proper research programme in the United Kingdom for deep geological disposal.
As long ago as 1976 the Flowers report said:
The United Kingdom now seems conspicuously backward among nations with significant nuclear programmes in its consideration and funding of studies relating to geological disposal of radioactive waste.
In 1986 the Select Committee on the Environment reiterated the story, adding:
All that we have seen confirms that impression, save that we are now nearly 10 years further behind.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I was a member of that Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman's quotations refer to the fact that in 1979 the Government cancelled site specific research into deep geological disposal of high-level nuclear waste. No research is being done on that. However, the Nirex proposals are nothing to do with high-level nuclear waste. They are to do with low-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste.

Mr. Wigley: Indeed. There is, nevertheless, a need for research to give us surety of what is scientifically right. If we have confidence in research work, the public are more likely to accept programmes that are put forward. Uncertainty leads to apprehension.
We have heard nothing that suggests that the Government have done anything during the past year to put more emphasis on research—certainly not enough to allow Nirex to go ahead with commissioning a deep disposal site.
A change in public perception was the second ground given by Nirex for abandoning the Bradwell, Fulbeck, South Killingholme and Elstow sites. The Government admitted in their discussion document that public acceptance of their plans was a major factor. Coming from the Minister just before a general election, that was hard for even the least cynical to swallow. Nirex and the Government will find the people of Wales and Ynys Môn no less resolute in their opposition to such plans than the people of Essex. I am sure that the same is true for Scotland.
Ours is not a hysterical response to anything concerned with the nuclear industry. The people of Gwynedd have lived with Wales' two nuclear reactors for many years. With regard to the Elstow site, the Environment Select Committee conceded to Bedfordshire county council:
feelings run high and such feeling is based on reasonable scientific doubt.
The Committee's report should be given due weight. The state of Britain's research is basic, and that alone is enough

to justify people's fears. We are talking about a problem that we shall bequeath to generations for thousands of years. As is suggested in the Nirex report, radioactive waste will be a hazard for centuries.

Mr. Barry Porter: As the hon. Gentleman is a physicist, would he like to give a percentage risk factor for low-level waste so that his constituents and others in the rest of the Celtic fringe may be aware of the risk?

Mr. Wigley: I shall come to that later. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is in one of the areas highlighted by Nirex. Many of us will be relieved if he is telling his constituents that he welcomes the possibility of low-level nuclear waste being deposited there.
People's perception of risk was minimised before the Chernobyl disaster, which led to a traumatic time for farmers in Gwynedd. They do not want their nuclear problem to be aggravated by the dumping of nuclear waste. They know about the effects of radiation on the life cycle, and that they can be serious. They know that if nuclear waste is dumped underground there is always a danger of water seeping into the dump and waste getting into the food chain. The rocks in Gwynedd are said to be stable, but only three years ago we had a major earthquake. There were several tremors and some public buildings, such as chapels, had to be demolished because of the damage sustained. Water mains were broken. How can we be confident that such things will not occur in the 10,000 years of which the Nirex document speaks? It is difficult to quantify risk. All we know is that nuclear accidents are much more serious than any others. That is why we must be so careful when dealing with this matter. Nirex is now involved in a series of desk studies. On page 11, headed "Site Selection", it says:
Drawing upon the experience of previous field investigations and hydrogeological surveys, a desk study was carried out … the five geological environments were ranked in order of preference. The first three, with simple and consequently more predictable hydrogeological structures, were grouped together as the preferred group as follows; Hard rocks in low relief terrain; Small islands; and Seaward dipping and offshore sediments".
It goes on:
Areas identified in the first of the above environments are on the Scottish mainland, some of the islands off the west coast of Scotland, and small parts of Wales, including Anglesey. The small islands comprise over one hundred islands around Britain, most of them off the west coast of Scotland and in the Shetlands and Orkney Islands.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify exactly what areas of Wales are included. Apart from the Isle of Anglesey, is Ynys Enlli—Bardsey Island—still in? It was named last year, but it appears not to be in there now, unless it is in the generic group of those islands around the coasts of Britain. Which communities are being affected? The definition in the letter to which I referred from Nirex does not, by a long chalk, spell out which areas are being affected.
There is a need to warn that if any further geological exploration takes place the farmers in these areas, as in the Dyfed valley when it was threatened a short while ago, will physically try to restrain any attempts to undertake geological exploration. That is sad, because much bona fide geological work will be hampered, and that will be the result of Nirex's work in the disposal of nuclear waste.
There are other implications. For example, road transport in many parts of north Wales, and, I believe, in


parts of Scotland, is appalling. In areas such as Gwynedd in summer the roads are chock-a-block with tourists. Only a couple of years ago there was a sign on the Menai bridge, which affected many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Wirral. South (Mr. Porter), saying that Anglesey was full and had no room for any more cars. That is a measure of the road problems of that area. To think that we might have armoured convoys with lethal radioactive rubbish on such roads—[Interruption.] Well, if the waste is not to be in armoured convoys, but in any lorry or van, that raises serious questions for the public. Equally, if carried by air, rail or sea there will be problems. Most of the areas do not have a rail service that lends itself to such matters.
I want to deal now with the points highlighted by Nirex under the heading "Public Discussion of the Issues". It says:
There is little doubt that any development of this magnitude will have a substantial impact on the local community".
It can say that again. It goes on:
Because of this, there is a need for open discussion and feedback from a wide audience.
I hope that tonight we shall be part of that.
Let me pick up some of the points that Nirex highlights in its questions. It asks:
which factors should be taken into account in selecting a site? Nirex is studying safety, waste transport, population density, environmental issues, constructability and costs.
Why is population density an important consideration? If the material is as safe as some hon. Members tonight would have us believe, that question does not enter into it. If it is not safe, why should the sparser areas have to face the consequences of the dangers that may exist? We and Nirex must face that question.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Nirex's document "The Way Forward" a map recording population density in Scotland missed out Glasgow, the central belt area and Aberdeen, showing only the Edinburgh and Lothian area as having a high population? Does that not give cause for serious concern when one considers other analyses?

Mr. Wigley: Because of some of the things that have been left off maps by Nirex, it clearly has some geographical, if not geological problems.
If the issue of density of population is a valid consideration, that must be faced, and if it is — my goodness—it is telling us that the more remote parts of north-west Wales, north-east Scotland and the islands are remote enough to live with that problem, whereas Finchley, Birmingham, Manchester or wherever are not.

Mrs. Ewing: Or Dulwich.

Mr. Wigley: Indeed, or Dulwich, as my hon. Friend has said.
The next question asked by Nirex is:
what weight should be given to the view of neighbouring countries when considering sub-seabed disposal?
I draw the attention of the House to the strong feelings that have been expressed by the Government of the Irish Republic on radioactivity in the Irish sea. The present Irish Government, like their predecessors, have made direct representations to the British Government about that.
Nirex also asked:
should particular areas of high amenity value, such as National Parks, be eliminated from the start?

That is a fair question, as the Lleyn peninsula, which has just been added to the Nirex list, has been designated in the past few weeks by the Secretary of State for the Environment as an area of outstanding natural beauty and one that is environmentally sensitive. It would appear that one hand is not working with the other on this matter.
Perhaps the most important question to be asked by Nirex is:
should an adequate site which enjoys local support be preffered to a superior site which does not?
That is a most important question, to which it is worth giving a little attention. If the need is to identify a basic number of sites that are acceptable, I suspect that if any one site is acceptable probably a few dozen other sites are also acceptable, and if within those few dozen sites there are some at which the local community is willing to have the facilities, such as the Wirral, as the hon. Member for Wirral, South suggested, or even more so in the Sellafield area, why on earth put other areas through trauma, uncertainty and campaigning? When one considers the Sellafield area, with all its expertise, and where, according to the apparently sound maps, there is the appropriate geology and the people are said to want the waste to be deposited there, why are we going through this exercise? Could it not be sorted out in that locality?
This issue is causing concern in an area where the nuclear question has been a problem for a long time. The Central Electricity Generating Board is considering building nuclear power stations in Gwynedd. Without any doubt, what is causing the CEGB the greatest difficulty is the additional uncertainty that is being created by Nirex. Such matters need to be sorted out quickly. If the Government could come to a rapid conclusion because a general election was imminent, they could come to an equally rapid conclusion now and save the worry that faces communities such as my own and let the facility go to those areas which are, clearly, keen to have it.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to speak on this matter because, as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, areas of Scotland have been judged by UK Nirex Ltd. to be suitable for the depositing of low-level nuclear waste. There is no doubt that, as long as we have nuclear power and nuclear power stations and enjoy the benefits of cheap nuclear fuel, we must accept the downside, which is that there will be waste of some kind from the processing in those units and that that must be disposed of.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the best way to find answers is with openness, frankness and a degree of sensitivity. I draw his attention to the fact that there is much scaremongering about the problem. Indeed, during the last week of the general election campaign in my constituency, the Scottish National party distributed leaflets stating that the Sunday Post, a well-known Sunday newspaper in Scotland, was the authority that had stated that nuclear waste would be dumped in Sheihalliom, which is in an environmentally sensitive area in Breadalbane. Naturally, if there had been any substance or truth in the matter, it would have been a cause of considerable concern.
In May, the information regarding the possible location of nuclear waste in Sheihalliom was released to the Sunday Post by the Scottish National party candidate for Western Isles. The Sunday Post printed the story. The leaflet was then taken from the story in the Sunday Post, and


innocently, or possibly deliberately, it mistook the date on which the Sunday Post had printed the story. The wrong date was put on the leaflet. Therefore, at the time it was not possible to check accurately. However, the Western Isles SNP candidate released the story in May.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Am I right in thinking that he is leading up to saying that he will welcome nuclear waste in Tayside, North? The Nirex map that has been referred to shows Tayside, North and regions near it painted in colours that show that they are first preferences for nuclear waste disposal. Would the hon. Gentleman welcome a nuclear waste depository in his constituency?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had been patient, he would have heard what I was about to say. I am drawing attention to the unnecessary scaremongering that has gone on and the deliberate attempts to use Goebbels-type tactics. Stories have been invented, and a newspaper has picked them up from a source at the Scottish National party. The newspaper was shown to be the authority for such stories. That is the type of thing that we expect from nationalists of some kind or another, but, I had hoped, not from the Scottish nationalists. It seems that my hopes have been destroyed. The Scottish nationalists were pursuing the type of nationalist policies that Goebbels practised before the war. In other words, they invented stories and then told the public that they were true.
One is dealing with a sensitive matter relating to nuclear waste and areas such as Sheihalliom and Breadalbane, which the Government have declared to be environmentally sensitive. Opposition Members do not realise that the highland fault lies close to the areas that we are discussing. Anyone who assumes that one may dump anything close to the highland fault has made little attempt to study the geographical history of Scotland.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to beware of news invention. It gets people upset and terribly worried. It means also that large areas of the country are faced with scaremongering that has no relevance to the truth. The truth is that, as long as we have nuclear power stations, satisfactory measures for the disposal of nuclear waste will have to be found.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Walker: When Opposition Members bob up and down, I can only say to them how delighted I was to note that, when the truth emerged, it did not show that Breadalbane and Sheihalliom were areas in which nuclear waste might be dumped. The areas that were considered to be suitable were in constituencies for which Scottish National party Members are now the sitting Members. That is a satisfactory way in which to resolve the problem of the Goebbels-type stories that came out during the general election. Indeed, Scottish National party Members have been hoist on their own petards. There is no question about that.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
I hope that, when he replies to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind that the SNP put out such stories. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, Scottish National party Members do not like it.

Mrs. Ewing: I am glad that, having made his comments, the hon. Gentleman has finally decided to give way. Having for posterity now inevitably dubbed himself as the "Dot Bill" of the Sunday Post, will he answer the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? Would he welcome nuclear waste within his constituency? Am I right in interpreting his latter remarks to mean that he would regard it as a suitable punishment for people who vote SNP to have nuclear waste in their constituencies?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady made that statement, not me. I hope that those who read Hansard will realise that I did not say that, but that the Scottish National party had been hoist on their own petard. They raised the issue of nuclear dumping, and raised it in my constituency with a leaflet that came out in the last week of the election. I called it the Scottish National party fairy tale leaflet and I warned the people of Scotland to beware of Scottish National party fairy tales.
There is no question but that at the next general election all their other fairy tales will be exposed equally. If the hon. Lady thinks that I am ashamed that the Sunday Post or anyone else might think that I am linked to them in some way, I remind the hon. Lady that D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. prints the Sunday Post, and I was born in Dundee and I am very proud that the Sunday Post and the Dundee Courier originated from Dundee, as I did. I shall not be in the least ashamed to be linked to the Sunday Post.

Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: I wish to join the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and support the many excellent points that he made, especially in relation to the irrelevance of population density. He was right to say that if a deep disposal site is safe, then density of population should not come into the issue.
I also join the hon. Gentleman in his more general observations, as I understand them, and his opposition in principle to the deep disposal of radioactive waste. 1 do not believe that technical knowledge is adequate yet for this solution to the problem. We cannot safely and with peace of mind abandon radioactive waste in deep disposal facilities, where it would be difficult to monitor, treat and retrieve if something should go wrong.
I disagree profoundly with the entire premise of the Nirex proposals in its discussion document "The Way Forward". The document says on page 5 that the impetus behind the proposals is the
recognised need, reflected in Government policy, to establish permanent safe disposal facilities which will remove from future generations any burden of management of current accumulations and future arisings of such waste.
The key phrase there is the aspiration to
remove from future generations any b"-den of management
of nuclear waste. That is thinking so wishful as to be grossly irresponsible. We must accept that the "burden of management" of nuclear waste will be with us for generations and generations to come. That is why I believe that we must store these wastes at or near the major production sites, where we can monitor and manage, treat and retrieve such wastes as and when necessary.
Having made that general point, I wish to say a word or two about my own constituency, which features largely, as has been mentioned this evening, in the Nirex document. Last weekend I attended a crowded public meeting in my constituency. That meeting rejected utterly the suggestion that the Hebrides should be considered a suitable site for radioactive waste disposal. Indeed, I have to tell the House that the entire Hebridean community is united in repudiating such a suggestion, and any attempt to put it into practice will be most bitterly opposed.
The entire community is opposed, for the general reasons that I have outlined and for particular reasons. The disposal of radioactive waste in the Hebrides would have a disastrous effect on the economy of the islands, dependent as they are upon a deserved reputation for a clean, natural and unspoilt environment.

Mr. Porter: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the sort of speech he is making, like that made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), is precisely the reason why people in these remote areas think that this is all very dangerous? I happen to live in and represent an area that has a fairly dense population— [Laughter]—and we have the problem, if it is one, of the disposal of low-level nuclear waste.
The more Opposition Members go on about how dangerous this all is, the more likely areas with remoter populations are to be given the waste, because of public sensitivity about the matter. If SNP, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Members had the courage to say that the risk is not worth bothering about—it is not—we might be able to get somewhere.

Mr. Macdonald: If there was no risk worth bothering about, the low-density population would not be one of the factors in Nirex's proposals. The Hebridean community is opposed to the disposal of radioactive waste because of the disastrous effect that that would have on the economy of the Hebrides, which have a reputation for a clean, natural and unspoilt environment. That is obviously true for the primary industries —crofting, fishing, fish farming and shellfish farming. Indeed, the prosperity of shellfish farming is founded on the reputation of the seas around the Hebrides for being uniquely clear and pollution-free.
Nuclear dumping would also have an impact on non-primary industries in my constituency such as the tourist industry, and even, by extension, on industries such as the manufacturing of Harris tweed.

Mr. James Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when the Nirex document gives as one of the advantages of under-sea disposal the fact that it is in no one's backyard, that shows a limited perspective? For those of us whose local economies depend heavily on the fishing industry, under the sea bed is very much in the backyard—although it may be out of sight, it is a relevant factor.

Mr. Macdonald: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The seas around our coasts are our backyard. The precious reputation of the Hebrides will vanish overnight if the Nirex proposals are put into effect. That is why they will be resolutely opposed by my constituents.
There is another argument against disposal in the Hebrides, which applies to areas other than the production sites. It relates to technical grounds; the Nirex document notes on page 21 the added danger caused by double

handling of waste and by transport by sea. On those grounds, transport across the Minches to the Hebrides would be unsuitable. The waters around the Hebrides are difficult and dangerous, especially, but not only, in the winter months.
Given what Nirex has said about the dangers of transport at sea, it is extremely disturbing that highly radioactive plutonium dissolved in nitric acid is even now being transported from Dounreay through the Minches down to England. Should there be an accident at sea, and should that plutonium nitrate solution escape into the sea, it would be impossible to recapture because of its soluble form. That is extremely disturbing and of great concern to my constituents.
The Nirex discussion document on the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste is not comprehensive. It fails to rank at least one type of rock that is often said to be suitable for a dump site, if any rock is —and I do not agree that that is so. Some maintain that thick, onshore deposits of mudstone strata in a particular sort of clay have the property of being able to absorb leaking radioactive waste, much as a sponge soaks up water. I shall not go into the merits of mudstone clay strata, but it is strange that it is hardly at all debated in the Nirex document, especially when it is remembered that the area where this kind of mudstone is to be found is also one of the few parts of Britain that escaped the last ice age. According to the Nirex document, the coming of the next ice age in about 20,000 years is supposed to be a major worry, in relation to deep disposal.
Is it only coincidence that the area to which I refer is, of course, the south-east of England? My constituents must be forgiven for their cynicism in thinking that this is not a coincidence and for feeling even more justified in their opposition to these proposals.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this matter. All six Members of the Scottish National party and the Welsh National party submitted applications, for this debate. In submitting those applications, we reflected the longstanding concern in both our nations about the disposal of nuclear waste. If we needed anything to confirm that concern, we had the publication in October of the document "The Way Forward". It came as no surprise to us that there was almost an immediate response to it from the people of Scotland and Wales.
On page 21 of the document the three options looked at by Nirex are outlined. It is clear which option is the most acceptable to Nirex — underland disposal. The only disadvantage outlined in the document is that it would be under someone's back yard. Given the comments of some Conservative Members, it appears that as long as that back yard is so-called "sparsely populated" it is acceptable. That is why there has been such a strong reaction by people in Scotland and Wales to the proposal.
When we look at sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6, we see that it was inevitable that Nirex should take the decision almost in advance of the consultation period to opt for disposal under land. When we look at the map, we see that the areas that are particularly singled out are in Scotland and Wales, especially in the constituency of my hon. Friend the


Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Therefore, we are deeply concerned that there seems to be an inevitability within the document.
Some Conservative Members say that we are being selfish because we are following the "Nimby" principle —"Not in my back yard". The Scottish National party has taken an unequivocal stance on the issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. We have consistently opposed the use of both. If one looks at our record, one sees that we had a suspicion about the siting of Dounreay. Why was it sited in that area of Scotland? It was because it was a sparsely populated area. We also opposed the siting of Torness nuclear power station in Scotland. It was commissioned by the Labour Government, but has been carried through since then. We have a consistent record of opposition to nuclear power.

Mr. David Harris: Is the hon. Lady also implacably opposed to the use of radiation in medical treatment, X-rays and similar treatments? Where does she think that the waste from those uses will be stored?

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is trying to take himself to an illogical conclusion. We all accept the importance of nuclear power in medicine. Indeed, I have benefited from it over the years. However, if the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to conclude this part of my speech, he would have heard me say that we accept that we have a responsibility for the disposal of waste that we create.
Scotland has been landed with three nuclear power stations. We have argued that the nuclear waste should be disposed of on site and above land where it can be monitored. That conclusion has been reached by many organisations, but it has not been considered by Nirex in its document. Those of us in Scotland and Wales are concerned to ensure that our geological strata do not become the nuclear dustbin of Europe, if not of the world. The British Government seem prepared to take nuclear waste from outwith our borders and dispose of it within our borders. We find that totally unacceptable.
Consider the environmental implications. At the public inquiry at Dounreay, much of the evidence against the development came from those with a direct interest in the maintenance of their local environment. We think, as did the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), of the fishermen, the farmers those involved in tourism and of those in my constituency who work in the whisky industry. They all depend on a clean environment, including clean water and fresh air.
Consider the psychological implications of nuclear waste being nearby. How many tourists will visit an area if they think that there is a dancer of contamination? Who will buy fish, agricultural produce or whisky if they think such items have been contaminated by local water being in contact with nuclear waste? We are concerned about this from the environmental and industrial point of view because the livelihoods of our constituents are dependent on industries which would be affected by the storage of nuclear waste. Previous decisions about the disposal of nuclear waste have been political. We have been told what happened at Bradwell, Elstow, Fulbeck and South Killingholme. On 1 May last the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the abandonment of those four sites —all of which were in Tory strongholds—on the

eve of a general election. He said that Nirex would look for a deep multi-purpose facility for low and intermediate level waste.
But the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee was not consulted on such a major change of policy, despite the fact that it was set up to advise on major issues relating to the development and implementation of an overall policy for the management of civil nuclear waste. As I say, the Minister's announcement came 10 days before the general election.
If political decisions are to be taken about the disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste, the Government will find strong resistance throughout Scotland and Wales to such decisions. Do not let Tory Members think that, just because we are talking about sparsely populated areas, that resistance will be weak. People throughout Scotland will resist the dumping of nuclear waste wherever it is proposed, even in Tayside.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Lady disown the leaflet that was distributed and the scaremongering that took place in my constituency during the last election and the tactics that lay behind it?

Mrs. Ewing: The decision of the people of Tayside, North was illustrated by the fact that the hon. Gentleman's majority decreased substantially at the election. He should look ahead to the next election when he may well lose his seat. He has not answered the question. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North, is he willing to accept the dumping of nuclear waste within his constituency? He is unwilling to answer and his constituents will note that.
We are looking for three basic promises. I am surprised that the Minister for Sport is to reply to the debate, although that is no reflection on him. However, given the interest of hon. Members from Scotland and Wales on the Opposition Benches and the fact that the overall responsibility lies with the Department of the Environment, I would at least have expected someone from one of those Departments to be on the Government Front Bench to give a direct reply on this issue.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The tragedy is that, since the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) was given a different responsibility in the Department, the Minister of State responsible for this crucial issue, Lord Belstead, is in another place. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is in the Chamber, but the Minister responsible for these matters is in another place. I would not argue that the Under-Secretary of State should not be the Minister responsible. However, the responsible Minister should be in the House to answer these questions and not in another place.

Mrs. Ewing: Indeed, half the Scottish Office Ministers are in another place, and the Secretary of State for Wales does not even represent a Welsh constituency.
We are looking for accountability. Nirex was established by the Government to consider how we should dispose of nuclear waste. That does not mean that the Government have a right to abrogate responsibility for taking the decision. We want to ensure that the Government will take full responsibility for any decisions. That is vital.
We want to see full consultation on all the options that are open. By "full consultation" we do not mean the


appointment of individuals representative of local authorities. All members of local authorities should be represented, not Government nominees or those who would favour the nuclear industry. We also want clear definitions of the procedures that will be followed in seeking planning permission. I expect the Government to tell me the minute that anyone sets foot in my constituency looking for the possible selection of a site, even if that person has only a pencil and a piece of paper. I expect to be notified immediately if my area is coming under scrutiny from Nirex.
We want to see a clear definition of the planning procedures and a clear assurance that all of us with an interest in these matters will be given the information. It is only right that there should be a full debate on this matter—not a debate called by six Back Benchers, but a debate offered by the Government to enable us to consider the matter clearly, thoroughly and fully. We should have full official statements from the Government on where they stand on this issue.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Even a glance at the recent history of the nuclear industry will show the difficulty that the Government and Nirex have had on this issue. Since 1979 the Government have had to withdraw from every site selected for test drilling in the face of local opposition. Most recently and dramatically, just before the election, the Government called off tests at Elstow, Killingholme, Bradwell and Fulbeck.
For the Government, the withdrawal from each test drilling represents another failed attempt to get the problem out of sight and out of mind. For those of us who oppose such quick-fix methods, that represents another reprieve and a chance to urge more broadly based research into safe storage. We are all paying now for years of neglect of the waste problem. At present we simply do not have the knowhow to deal with the waste effectively. The Select Committee on the Environment reported on radioactive waste last year and admitted:
The poor state of research in the United Kingdom means it is impossible at this stage for us to recommend any disposal option with total confidence.
It also stated:
The United Kingdom is well behind other nations in its research and development programmes.
The need to embark on that research will become increasingly urgent as we approach the end of the century.
As the Magnox nuclear power stations reach the end of their lives, and if the Government go ahead with the decommissioning of Polaris nuclear submarines, the volume of waste to be dealt with will further increase. It means that we have to work within a tight, fixed timetable. The site at Drigg in Cumbria will, according to the Government's response to the Select Committee's report last year, be full by the year 2010. It goes without saying that we cannot begin too soon our efforts to find a lasting and safe solution to the problem of waste storage. In this respect, we welcome the attempts of Nirex to get the debate rolling.
Nirex described its document "The Way Forward" as the beginning of a great debate, consulting as widely as possible on future disposal options. We welcome such a debate, especially the efforts to take account of community views, otherwise Nirex has no real democratic accountability. It is constituted essentially of vested interests, with little or no participation by the community.
The debate must be genuine. In one respect, the consultative process promised by Nirex is a sham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, Nirex has claimed in its discussion document that no decisions have been taken on the repository site for low and intermediate level nuclear waste. However, one important decision has been made —that there must be a disposal option.
It is clear from remarks in the forum and from the document that Nirex will not entertain any debate on the possibility of storing radioactive waste on site at the nuclear installations at which it is generated. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), speaking for the SNP, said that it is clear that Nirex has already determined that it wants deep-level storage, and on-land storage at that. It shines through the document. Some consultative process!
The truth is that there can never be disposal of nuclear waste in any real sense, only burial or safe storage, with continuous monitoring. If we could dispose of waste we would not find ourselves in the present predicament, yet the Nirex report deals only with low and intermediate-level waste. High-level waste is not discussed. Can we really expect an open debate? Sadly, I fear that Nirex gives away the game in its document when it says:
Nirex wishes to receive advice and comments about how it should proceed within the framework of Government policy.
If we can debate only on the Government's agenda, we must assume a commitment to an expanding reprocessing programme and total nuclear power, all of which produces ever-increasing quantities of waste. Surely part of the debate must be about how we can decrease, and ultimately stop, the production of radioactive waste.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not support replacing Polaris with another breed of nuclear weapons? If Polaris is replaced with another breed of nuclear weapons, where will the plutonium come from?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows well that my party believes and has always believed, that we should pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons. I hope that all parties agree with that belief. There may be different views on how we should go about it, but even the Government have said that they would rather see a nuclear-free world.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Member has not answered the question. If there is to be a replacement for Polaris —as I understand it, it is alliance policy—the plutonium will have to be provided for the replacement, so that will require reprocessing and a nuclear power station of some kind to produce the plutonium. Is that the position of the hon. Gentleman's party?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's party set up the Chapel Cross tritium plant to produce the materials. I hope that he will join us in working towards the abolition of plants for civil and military nuclear power, and therefore the need to dispose of waste. Clearly the problem is with us already, so it makes little odds whether we go ahead with the programme, because the waste still has to be disposed of.
It is no wonder that the environmental groups remain sceptical about the Nirex document. Greenpeace has said:
If consultation is to have any credence, there must be a clear commitment towards taking account of the views of those consulted, even if these run contrary to Government and nuclear industry policy. The exercise must not artificially


limit the choices available, otherwise the public are simply given the choice of variations on the same theme. The facts presented to the public must also be just that, omitting nothing even where the truth is embarrassing.
On the evidence presented so far, we are far from hopeful that the above criteria will be met by Nirex and its consultation document.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) should consider Labour's behaviour last year in the Select Committee on the Environment when the Committee reported on this matter. Labour opposed the Liberal call for research to be co-ordinated with our American and European counterparts. It also opposed our plea that no new deep geological sites should be opened in the United Kingdom. Labour also opposed the Liberal and Friends of the Earth view that storage should continue to be on site for the immediate future. The Labour spokesman voted with the Tories when the Committee considered chapter seven of its report on radioactive discharges. Labour voted against Liberal demands for the Government to establish an inquiry to investigate the incidence of cancers among people near nuclear establishments. Such is the Labour record on this matter.
It is hard to accept that Nirex is the appropriate body for the task. After all, it is a
creature of the nuclear industry.
That apt description was given by the Royal Commission for Environmental Protection. If the consultation process were to reveal overwhelming public preference for longterm on-site storage, Nirex would be unable to approve that because it is not within its terms of reference.
On-site storage has important advantages, and that is why the Liberal party advocates such storage until suitable alternative methods, proved to be safe, are available. Any decision taken now, based on poor knowledge, could have catastrophic consequences for the future. We should not enter into any storage method that might preclude retrieving the waste in the future so that it might be stored more safely. On-site storage would enable constant monitoring, and it recognises the limits of our present knowledge.
On-site storage removes the need for the transport of waste, with all the attendant problems of safety and security that have been mentioned. Such storage represents no more of a security risk than is presently represented by nuclear power stations. Such land surface storage has been employed for high-level waste for the past 40 years, and there is the prospect of such storage continuing in the foreseeable future.
Conservative Members have said that the Nirex proposals are aimed only at low and intermediate-waste. If we measure such waste in terms of radioactivity rather than bulk, we find that it accounts for only about 5 per cent. of waste. The other 95 per cent. of high-level waste must, in any case, be stored above ground. As yet such waste is undisposable, and the other 5 per cent. should be kept with that waste.
In a debate on waste dumping it is impossible to cover all the arguments relating to nuclear power. It must he acknowledged — it is undeniable — that the problem would be eased if we were not producing more and more waste without knowing how to dispose of it safely. Present worries are bound to increase as the nuclear industry is privatised. In a competitive environment we already know that private business will not invest in nuclear power,

partly because of the high cost involved in keeping those stations safe. That problem has confronted the Secretary of State for Energy as he squirms around to try to find a formula that will maintain a nuclear industry within a privatised industry that does not want it.
If the privatised industry is forced by the Secretary of State to act, how do we know that the safety of the nuclear industry will not be compromised? Overseas, there have been some unpleasant experiences. Of six commercial low-level radioactive waste dumps in the United States, three have been closed because of off-site radioactive contamination.
Some method of safe storage is needed even if we do not continue with the nuclear power programme. We must deal with the existing waste and also de-commission existing power stations. The means of storage for which we opt must be built on a sense of responsibility for the future. We are dealing with a matter that is more important than crude party politics. The safety of future generations is at stake.
The Government should not underestimate the weight of responsibility on their shoulders. We may disagree vehemently about the poll tax and the restructuring of education, but those are changes that we can reverse. The disposal of nuclear waste is final and potentially deadly. I hope that Ministers will start a debate around the country about the genuine wishes of people. I hope that the Government will respond to what I believe will be the clear demand to protect future generations.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: When the Secretary of State for the Environment was answering questions in the House on 2 December about the disposal of nuclear waste, he said:
I sometimes think that it would be best if we had 650 supplementary questions on this matter, and then we would all be back where we started." —[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 927.]
That, I think, shows the controversy that surrounds the subject that we are debating. The Secretary of State was no stranger to such controversy, for on 1 May 1987—as we have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—he announced to the House that Nirex had decided not to proceed with investigations into four sites.
Whatever reasons the Secretary of State gave the House, technical or otherwise, for not proceeding with investigations into a shallow site, it is clear that his decision on that occasion was a political one. Quite simply, he knew that an election was in the offing, and that there was a danger that the Government would lose marginal seats in England because of the massive opposition to their plans in those constituencies.

Mr. Harris: They were strongholds.

Mr. Jones: They were marginal seats. The hon. Gentleman knows that. Otherwise, the decision would not have been made.
When Nirex published its consultative document, it invited Members of Parliament to a briefing session, during which Nirex officials said that, apart from technical and geological criteria, they were prepared to look at three specific matters: first, public acceptability of the plan; secondly, social considerations; and thirdly, economic considerations. When I called a public meeting to consider


the implications of the consultative document in my constituency, 600 people turned up to voice their opposition. That was the biggest public meeting that I have attended in my constituency, and the breadth of opposition was quite revealing, involving the trade unions, industry, various organisations and associations, the churches and others. Clearly, there is widespread concern in our communities.
I am very conscious of the time factor, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I should like to say in conclusion that the main problem in relation to land disposal is the inability to predict with any great confidence future geological or ground water activity. Furthermore, the consequences of a mistake would be catastrophic. My constituency is well known as an area where there is a great deal of ground water activity. When I described that as a potential problem, I was informed that an island was a suitable site, because if there was an accident it could be contained.
What confidence can that inspire in Nirex's plans among the people of Ynys Môn?

Mr. Welsh: There have been accusations of scaremongering from the Conservative Benches. However, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) has pointed out that the criteria chosen by Nirex point clearly to Wales and Scotland as the most favoured sites. Far from being scaremongering, this is straightforward opposition to Scotland being used as a nuclear dumping ground. The arguments are valid, for the very reason that they were rejected in England.

Mr. Jones: We are saying to the House that Nirex should withdraw the consultative documents, so that further research can he carried out on this important matter.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I once had a general studies tutor who used to say that what surprised him was not how little people knew, but how much they knew that was not true. That is especially true of the nuclear industry. I do not suggest for a moment that it applies to any of the speeches that we have heard today; a good deal of knowledge has been displayed on both sides of the House. I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on an excellent speech in defence of his communities and his area. He displayed considerable knowledge about the problems that we are discussing.
However, many people mix up the levels of nuclear waste, the nature of nuclear waste, and what we are talking about. There is low-level nuclear waste, intermediate-level nuclear waste, and high-level nuclear waste, and there are low-level discharges to the environment. I want to deal with each one in turn.
The Labour party believes that there should be no discharges to the environment from any nuclear installation, and that is possible. The Select Committee on the Environment, on which I served — the Liberal spokesman produced a parody of what happened in that Committee, but one would expect that from the Liberals — argued that discharges should be be as low as technically achievable.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: No.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: The answer is no.
That was rejected by the Government at that time, and by the industry. But the ministerial declaration after the second international conference on the protection of the North sea—this is a document to which the Secretary of State for the Environment has subscribed—declares the Ministers' intention to respect the relevant recommendations of the competent international organisations and to this end to apply
the best available technology to minimise pollution".
This is in the section about radioactive wastes and discharges.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: I ask the Minister if this is a change of policy. Are we to have nil discharges from Sellafield and from all other nuclear installations? That is the view of the Labour party. There is no need for the discharge of either gases or water.
Low-level nuclear waste — the Select Committee on the Environment agreed with this — can be safely disposed of. That is what the shallow burial sites were about. At the moment, it is disposed of in Drigg. If it is not safe in Drigg, where at the moment the people are fed up because it is all coming there, with lorries rumbling through the village, because the Government, quite wrongly, abandoned the other possible disposal sites, where is it safe? But there would always be some production of low-level waste, even though nuclear power were to be phased out, as is Labour party policy, because to stop it we would have to close every cancer hospital in the country. So let us not get mixed up about that.
Then there is intermediate-level nuclear waste. I hold no brief for Nirex; I think that it is an incompetent body, for the reasons already mentioned in the debate; it represents the industry but no one else not the trade unions in the industry, not the community, not the environmentalist lobby. It is not a cross-section in any way, but only an incompetent pawn of a Government who have no policy for the disposal of nuclear waste. But Nirex is now considering putting low-level and intermediate-level waste together in deep disposal sites. Is it disposal —I want the Minister to answer this—or is it retrievable storage that is capable of being monitored? I do not support disposal. The Guardian of 13 November reports Mr. John Baker, the Nirex chairman, as saying that
disposal did not mean that it would be impossible to monitor or retrieve the waste".
But that is not what the document says. The document talks about disposal. We say that disposal of intermediate-level, not low-level nuclear waste, is an option that we would not support. We prefer retrievable, monitorable storage in a safe place.
One of the problems about Nirex is that disposal of high-level nuclear waste is not in its brief. The Labour party does not believe that one organisation can deal adequately with the problem if it has a brief only to look at certain categories of radioactive waste, without taking account of the whole picture, including high-level nuclear waste. There is no proposal in the Nirex document, nor am I aware of any proposal by the Government, for the disposal anywhere of high-level nuclear waste. High-level waste is to be stored. At the moment, it is mostly in


liquefied form, stirred at Sellafield, then vitrified, and then it will go, in its vitrified form, to be stored above ground for 50 years.
I support that as the only possible, technically feasible way of dealing — whether any more high-level nuclear waste is created or not—with what is already there. But what will happen to it after 50 years? There is no disposal route, no long-term plan, no costings, as regards what happens to that high-level waste in 50 or 100 years' time —the waste that for the time being will be vitrified and stored above ground. Do the Government have a policy for future high-level nuclear waste?
The Labour party believes that low-level discharges into the environment should be stopped. Policies for the compaction, incineration and safe storage of low-level waste should be developed. We believe not that intermediate-level waste should be disposed of but that it should be stored in a monitorable and retrievable form. There is no proof, research or evidence that high-level waste can ever be disposed of, and we do not know whether the Government have a policy for its long-term storage and monitoring.
Having said that research needs to be done, I accept that when a Labour Government come to power, we shall have to deal with this problem. Decommissioning Polaris and phasing out nuclear power stations will create more waste, which will have to be monitored and dealt with.
The Labour party does not pretend that it is opposed to everything and that it is not prepared to seek a solution. Unlike the Liberal party and the Scottish National party, we shall be in government and we shall have to deal with this problem, which is why we are opposed to a Government who have no policy and to the hypocrisy of the alliance, which pretends that it is greener than the Labour party and that it will phase out nuclear power, close down Sellafield and stop reprocessing, but will replace Polaris with another breed of nuclear weapons and produce the plutonium to test them. The greatest source of radioactive pollution in the world is the testing of nuclear weapons. More radioactivity in Britain's environment has come from the testing of nuclear weapons, which the alliance supports, than has ever come from the civil nuclear power industry.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has given a complete parody of alliance policy. I understand from an interview that the hon. Gentleman gave to The Guardian that he is in favour of deep-sea tunnelling from the coast at Sellafield. Presumably he is also opposed to the transportation of nuclear waste arourtd the country. Is the Labour party in favour of deep-sea tunnelling outward from the coast into the Pentland firth for the disposal of the nuclear waste that is created at Dounreay?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in The Guardian, particularly as it is a Liberal paper, and he should not presume that we are against the transportation of nuclear waste. That is not a matter on which I have made a statement in the past, and I shall not do so now.
When the Labour party comes to power at the next election, it will stop the production of military grade plutonium at Sellafield or anywhere else, which is a policy to which the alliance is not committed. We shall immediately stop the Official Secrets Act being applied by

executive action to the civil nuclear industry and will end the secrecy that surrounds Sellafield. We shall immediately set up a proper research programme on how to decommission power stations and deal with nuclear waste in a manner that takes account of the protection of the environment.
We shall not, as the Government have tried to do, use special development orders to find sites for the disposal of nuclear waste against the wishes of affected communities. If the BNFL or any other proposal progresses, it must be within the limits of planning legislation, without special development order status; communities will have to be considered, and a full public inquiry held. That is the policy of the Labour party on any disposal route—we are not in favour of disposal — for retrievable, monitorable storage of intermediate high or low-level nuclear waste.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Time is short and I want to press the Minister on one specific point. I am concerned at moves afoot to short-circuit the site selection procedures.
Like any earnest seeker after the truth, I have been tabling parliamentary questions that have been answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. On 10 November he told me that the procedures remain to be determined. On 18 November he told me that there was to be no change in the planning procedures for site selection. When I probed the apparent conflict between those two answers, I was told on 27 November that he would reply as soon as possible. After a long thought-provoking pause over the weekend, on 30 November he said that he had nothing to add to his answer of 10 November. On 25 November I wrote probing the Under-Secretary of State on the same subject and have yet to receive a reply.
Will the Minister confirm or deny that there are moves afoot to short-circuit the site selection procedures, or will he, like his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, continue to evade the question?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I have very little time but I will try to answer as many of the points as possible. There will be no short-circuiting of the site selection procedure. I must stress that at this stage neither Nirex nor the Government have any firm proposals for the siting of a radioactive waste repository. No decisions have yet been made and no part of the country can be ruled out.
I can assure hon. Members that the developers will have to have the appropriate permissions at all stages for the preliminary investigations. That might take the form of planning permission or—I say this to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts)—a special development order approved by Parliament. Any proposal to build a repository will be the subject of a public inquiry. The developers will also have to comply with all relevant safety standards as laid down and enforced by the authorising Departments.
The important issue of risk was raised in an exchange across the Chamber. It is important to place it on record that the radiological safety target currently set is a risk of one in a million per year. That is a small risk compared with those we run every day from other hazards and I hope


that that will assist hon. Members if they are in any doubt about how the Government define the risk involved and the level of risk.
The position on co-ordination between Departments is that, when Nirex comes forward with a specific proposal, the Department or Departments dealing with it will depend on the country in which it is located. Normal liaison arrangements with other Departments will apply. However, the current Nirex document and the work going on in regard to the desk studies are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is why I am responding to the debate. The Department of the Environment is in regular discussion with other Departments, including the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, about progress with the Nirex proposals.
On public acceptability, Nirex will be making use of the comments received during the consultation exercise, together with the results of its studies of technology and geology, to come forward with a proposal for a facility. It will be for the Government to make the final decision, after full public debate.
There was an important and understandable exchange on population density. Containment deep under ground eliminates significant risks to the public, so population density is not crucial. However, Nirex specifically asked in its consultation document whether that was one of the factors to be taken into account in selecting a site. It would be most unwise not to pay due attention to the strength of public opinion that exists, which has led many hon. Members to spend hours late into the night debating this important issue.
The role of local authorities is another important specific point. Any proposal to build a repository will be the subject of a public inquiry. The views of the local authority will be taken on board at that point, as they will during the consultation exercise. Briefing seminars are already being held for local authorities.
We have made it clear in the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee, Cmnd. 952, that it is Government policy that waste should be disposed of under strict supervision to high standards of safety and that the periods of storage should be the minimum compatible with safe disposal. It is desirable to dispose of low-level and intermediate-level waste as soon as possible and to avoid the creation of additional accumulations and the provision of costly and extensive storage capacity.
I was asked why the plans for a new near-surface disposal facility were abandoned. I know that that subject has led to a lively and intense debate and to reaction from hon. Members on both sides of the House. They will be aware of the answer that I am about to give but, for the record, I shall give it again. Reassessment of the costs by Nirex shows that the cost differential between near-surface

and deep disposal has been eroded. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted therefore that Nirex should focus efforts on development of a single deep repository.
Research has also been drawn to our attention. The Department of the Environment and Nirex have substantial research programmes on radioactive waste management. The development of a disposal facility is not inhibited by lack of research, but the research leads us increasingly to focus on specific potential disposal sites. It is for Nirex to identify technically suitable sites.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned monitoring and retrievability. Those are issues on which Nirex would welcome views. Its proposal in "The Way Forward" involve monitoring during the operational life of an underground disposal facility. It is not expected that waste should be retrieved from a repository, but the ability to do so will remain during the operational phase. I hope that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Bootle, although without giving him satisfaction, which I regret.
The hon. Member for Truro also mentioned decommissioning wastes. The decision not to proceed with a new shallow disposal site has little bearing on decommissioning Magnox and AGR stations, although it is accepted that the delay in providing disposal facilities might require certain wastes to be stored for a time before disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) expressed surprise during an exchange about whether the transport of radioactive waste might require armoured convoys. There is no reason why transport of low and intermediate level nuclear waste should require armoured convoys. International guidance on procedures for such transport are well established and we follow them.
The hon. Member for Bootle referred to the North sea conference. The declaration on discharges and disposal of radioactive wastes provides a framework within which the United Kingdom can continue its improvements to, for example, the Sellafield complex. The agreement to apply the best available technology to minimise pollution is a welcome clarification. The wording on solid waste repositories institutionalises the need to aim to preclude pollution from that source. Disposal remains accepted policy, but that does not mean that no provision might be made to facilitate monitoring and to ensure retrievability.
I have not yet arrived at my speech, despite the fact that I have about 30 seconds left. Rather than become involved in it, I should like to say that I hope that my addressing some of the matters that hon. Members have raised has been helpful. Although I have not been able to say what I wanted to say, I welcome the fact that others have been prepared to stay so late to take part in this important debate.

Afghanistan

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: It is right that, as we approach the eighth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we should debate the matter in the House. Moreover, Mr. Gorbachev has recently talked to the Prime Minister and he is now engaged in negotiations with the President of the United States of America.
British policy has two strands — humanitarian and political — and I should like to consider both. The United Nations General Assembly recently debated Afghanistan and concentrated on Soviet withdrawal. The Soviet Union has expressed a desire to withdraw and the PDPA—the Afghan Communist party—has said that it is ready to compromise with the Afghan resistance and wishes to end the war.
What proposals have emanated from Kabul with Soviet support? First, the regime declared a ceasefire, which did not succeed. It amounted to a demand, which nobody expected the Afghans to accept, that they should surrender in return for nothing whatever. A coalition was proposed, but all key posts were to be reserved to the PDPA. The regime called for refugees to return to Afghanistan, but the evidence is that, even if official figures are to be believed, less than 2 per cent. of the refugees have done so.
The Afghan regime adopted a constitution that has been endorsed by a hand-picked assembly, although the Afghan people have not been consulted. The constitution enshrines the leading role of the PDPA and its front organisation, the National Front, and draws heavily on the soviet constitution. It is no surprise that Dr. Najib told the PDPA conference in October that the Communist party would keep both its dominant position and the presidency.
Kabul's reconciliation proposals have not been accepted by any credible Afghan group outside the ruling regime. As my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur said to the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November,
it is not reconciliation but capitulation which is on offer.
The Afghans will not accept a regime dominated by the PDPA or whatever name it may subsequently adopt.
The massive violation of human rights in Afghanistan was once again condemned by a record majority in the latest United Nations resolution on human rights, cosponsored by the United Kingdom. The United Nations resolution was a diplomatic success. Pakistan and her friends overcame one of the largest diplomatic offences the Soviet Union has ever mounted. A record 123 countries sent a clear message to the Soviet Union on 10 November which demanded, as Britain has done eight times before, that the Russians should translate their words into deeds, withdraw their troops and let the Afghans decide their own future.
But diplomatic successes on their own are not enough. While these processes run their course, contrary to Soviet propaganda, as the House knows, the war continues with unmitigated ferocity and cruelty. While talking of withdrawal, the Soviet and Afghan forces have launched major offensives this year in the Kandahar and Pakhtiar areas. The Kandahar offensive did not secure the city and that in Pachtiar was beaten back in a major success for the resistance. At the same time, there have been continued violations of the Pakistan-Afghan border and large numbers of Afghan refugees, including women and

children, have been indiscriminately slaughtered. As the United Nations special rapporteur, Felix Ermacora, said, it is a situation approaching genocide.
We see little in Britain on the television or in the newspapers about Afghanistan. It is a war that has not been reported in the way that Vietnam and other wars were. The Russians do not accommodate journalists, as the Americans did in Vietnam. They have not taken any western correspondents on operations because they obviously do not want to show what they do when they go into a village and slaughter the inhabitants. They have offered conducted tours of Kabul, Jelalabad and Paghman, but those have yielded little in the way of news.
The alternative for the newsman is to go with the Mujahideen, and those journalists and others who have done so and have undertaken the tremendous danger and discomfort of that course deserve every respect. In addition to the dangers of the war, the terrain is unsuitable for vehicles and television cameras must be transported by horse or on foot. Therefore, the level of coverage given to this war in the news media has been very low and is declining. People are now less well aware than they were of what is happening, but I believe that the British people, deep down, do not care any less about the tragedy that is being enacted in Afghanistan, about the hundreds of thousands of people who are dead or maimed, including women and children, or about the homelessness, destitution and starvation that has been caused and is experienced in that country.
I am pleased that the Government are supporting the Afghan information office, which is chaired by our former colleague in this House, Lord Cranborne, and which has set up an information office in Peshawar to provide detailed and factual reporting of what is taking place. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would wish to recognise the courage and dedication with which that effort is carried out and to hope that the vital grant that is provided by the Government — vital but small in comparison to the need and scope of the work—can be increased as a matter of urgency within the next few weeks so that that work can continue.
I know, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm, that the Government believe, as I do, that public support for the plight of the Afghan refugees and the struggle of the resistance is as vital now as it has ever been —public awareness is essential if there is to be public support, and the Government have a crucial role to play in this.
The Government have given vital support to the voluntary organisations. I believe that we are making available in total this year £5 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghans, including £3·5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — that is about one fifth of our total funding for UNHCR—and about £370,000 to Afghan Aid. In addition, £25,000 has been provided for the Afghan information office, which I have already mentioned, and which is an important but exiguous sum in relation to the importance and magnitude of the task.
For nearly eight years of war, Afghanistan has been suffering from an increasing and ever-more tragic refugee problem year by year, and it is now the biggest in the world. More than 5 million Afghans are refugees in Pakistan and Iran. About 2 million people are refugees in their own country. About one Afghan in two no longer lives where he or she did when the Soviets invaded. An


immense effort has been made by the international voluntary agencies to try to cope with the problem. Most Afghans now have little of no means of support. Several private voluntary organisations have been trying to help. Afghan Aid and Health Unlimited are justifiably well known in this country, and similar organisations operate from the United States, Norway, France, Germany, Austria and Pakistan.
Lack of co-operation from the Afghan Government has compelled those organisations to operate their programmes clandestinely across the frontiers. Funding the work has proved difficult. Obviously, official donors usually operate through recognised Governments, but that has proved virtually impossible with Afghanistan. Government-sponsored international bodies, such as the International Red Cross, are bound by international law and cannot work in a country without the approval of the recognised Government. In the case of Afghanistan, the Kabul Government refused to grant access to such organisations.
There was also lack of interest by the West during the first years of the war when people believed that a Soviet victory in Afghanistan was inevitable. Many Governments were unwilling to provide money for aid to Mujahideen-held areas, now amounting to three quarters of the country. Therefore, medical aid to Afghanistan has been limited to the efforts of private voluntary organisations. Medical and paramedical staff of such agencies take great risks associated with clandestine missions inside Afghanistan to take medical aid to a population that is deprived of even the most basic health care facilities. Recently, a substantial United States Government-sponsored programme was started to step up the health service inside Afghanistan, through Afghan paramedical staff.
Before the war, Afghanistan was developing a national health service in rural areas. After the coup in 1978 and the killing or imprisonment of doctors, many doctors fled abroad. There is now a desperate shortage of qualified medical and paramedical staff. The war ended immunisation and eradication campaigns and public health programmes. Then came the horrors of the war itself—the wounded, the maimed, the 2 million displaced persons within Afghanistan, and the problems of the refugees. Before the war, infant mortality was estimated to be about 18 per cent. Recent surveys show that the under-five mortality rate is 30 to 40 per cent. One in three children dies before he or she reaches the age of five.
It is estimated that only 30 to 40 Afghan doctors have remained in Mujahideen-controlled areas—that is, about three quarters of the country. They and those of the Mujahideen who have done first aid courses at Pershawar cannot possibly cope. Private organisations have clandestinely sent more than 500 doctors and nurses, inspired by humanitarian and professional ideals, across the border. They have set up clinics in many parts of the country, and carry supplies on horseback for weeks and months at a time. They work under tremendous pressure. Many clinics, some bearing a red cross on their roofs, have been bombed. The doctors have given more than medical help to the Afghan people. A French doctor, Philippe Augoyard, was captured by the Russians and held in goal for five months. During one of his cross-examinations, he was told:

We know that you are not supplying weapons to the Mujahideen but you are doing something worse—you are giving hope to the Afghan people.
That is a vital function that the Government have continued to support.
Crucial to the survival of the millions of refugees have been the Government of Pakistan. They bear the burden of approximately half the world's refugees today. They have withstood massive political and violent pressure, aerial attacks, and terrorist bombs that have been planted in bazaars, indiscriminately killing hundreds of men, women and children.
When the war is over, there will be a massive task facing Afghanistan — reconstruction, resettlement of the population, and rebuilding of the economy, administration and education. That will require not only technological expertise but a political structure that has the consent of the population. Where have we got to? The negotiations at Geneva, under the auspices of the United Nations, have, on paper at least, so far shown agreement that, after settlement, Afghanistan should be non-aligned, that there should be no future external interference or intervention, and that refugees should have the right to return home safely. But there is still a deadlock over the timetable for withdrawal. Although Moscow and Kabul seem willing to accept a 12-month withdrawal period, that is still well beyond what is necessary, and a date has not yet been decided. The Russians are not yet prepared to risk allowing the Afghans to decide that their future should be other than Communist, whatever happens in Geneva.
I know that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pressed Mr. Gorbachev for an early withdrawal, and I hope that President Reagan is doing likewise. Soviet withdrawal is essential to a solution to the agony of Afghanistan. The Russians must accept that real rather than cosmetic steps are needed, and they must come forward with a firm date for early withdrawal in 1988 so as to secure a transition to an independent arid nonaligned Afghanistan. Kabul's present proposals cannot bring about that transition; there is a very long way yet to go.
Dr. Ermacora, the United Nations rapporteur, has put together in the past five years a peace plan that does not include the timing of Soviet withdrawal but provides for the return home of the 5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, as well as for United States and Soviet guarantees of the settlement.
Outside the scope of the United Nations talks, there has been an understanding of how Afghanistan will be ruled in future, which must include discussions with the seven-party alliance of the Afghan resistance. Kabul has offered so far only a constitution that would confirm the Communist party's dominance. The American Secretary of State has said that the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal must precede work on forming a transitional Government, and that if a timetable were agreed the United States would work to help create a transitional Government.
The plan that is reputedly being proposed by Dr. Hammer in his shuttle between Moscow, Kabul, Islamabad, Peking, Rome and Washington calls for phased withdrawal of Russian troops, with an agreed ceasefire policed by United Nations observers, leading to a conference to discuss the formation of a new coalition Government to be headed by former King Mohammed Zahir Shah.
However, many of the Mujahideen believe that the right to decide the future of Afghanistan belongs only to those who have been fighting against foreign influence, and the right should be exercised only after unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan by Soviet forces. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, regards the Communists as the only reliable guarantors of security and continues to insist that any withdrawal must leave the People's Democratic party of Afghanistan as the dominant force in the post-withdrawal Government. That attitude seems to the guerillas to be an attempt to achieve by diplomacy what the Soviet army has failed to achieve by force in eight years of savage war, and the gap remains wide; if the Mujahideen are not involved in the negotiation process, it is inevitable that they will not feel bound by any agreement. They have said over and over again that they are prepared to sit down and negotiate with the Soviet Union. That would not be a simple process as the seven parties making up the Mujahideen alliance have not agreed on what sort of Government should appear or who should run it. Nor would their authority necessarily be accepted by Mujahideen commanders within Afghanistan.
Despite the difficulties about the unity of the Mujahideen, it is clearly vital, if there is to be peace, that they should be part of negotiations about the future of Afghanistan. They are the logical spokesmen for the majority of people, and if they are not included in negotiations they are likely to continue to fight, which could be used in turn as an excuse for the Soviets to remain in the country.
The plight of Afghanistan, tragic though it is for those involved, is also a major issue. The Soviet Union's behaviour there is the main contemporary test of its alleged commitment to new thinking in foreign policy. Withdrawal would show that Mr. Gorbachev means business and has the authority to transact it.
It will not be easy for the Russians to accept a representative regime in Kabul by allowing a process of genuine self-determination to take place. But it is essential that they bring their troops home if they are to end the widespread international comdemnation of their actions and if they are to help to bring peace to Afghanistan.
Today, popular acceptance of and respect for the central state authority in Afghanistan have broken down. That has happened twice before in the past 200 years of Afghanistan history. They can be re-established in the minds of the people of that country only if a future political leadership has some perceived roots in the past, is not imposed from outside and is seen to be capable to working in the present conditions. A Marxist regime imposed by force from outside cannot possibly have that effect in the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.
Whether the Soviets work to heal the devastation and suffering that they have caused is the litmus test of their good faith, not only in Afghanistan but in international affairs generally. The withdrawal of their military forces is essential.
The Government's policy in this crucial area should have four themes: first, to continue to press for an early Soviet withdrawal; secondly, to urge the inclusion of the Mujahideen in the negotiating process; thirdly, to give the Afghans as much humanitarian assistance as we can

afford; and, fourthly, to offer strong moral support, based on greater public awareness of the misery that has been suffered by the people of Afghanistan.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on choosing this important subject for debate tonight. It is not a matter to which hon. Members are often able to turn their minds, but it is none the less crucially important for that. The turnout on the Government Benches tonight —at this hour—is a tribute to that.
There have been some remarkably optimistic and important developments in East-West relations, exemplified today by the signing of the agreement on intermediate weapons in Washington. Great expressions of good will are being made hourly, in more and more lavish terms. There is no doubt that conditions in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and her allies are far better for a rapprochement across the broad spectrum between the Soviets and the free West. However, progress should now be restrained until the Russians right a most wicked and terrible wrong, namely, that in 1979, by a large-scale and cruel military intervention, they raped Afghanistan. By any standards, the invasion was a grotesque and entirely unprovoked act of force against a small, non-aligned and independent country.
It is important that when we discuss these matters we do not forget the background of that monstrous crime. To this day, despite the odd hopeful but largely irrelevant noise from the Soviet Union, innocent Afghans continue to be butchered by a brutal military regime. That regime will stop at nothing, and no crime or act of wickedness has been spared in the prosecution by the Soviets of their war against Afghan civilians.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, terms for a settlement were recently offered to the Afghans. In his speech to the United Nations, Lord Glenarthur rightly described those terms as likely to lead not to reconciliation but to capitulation and the Afghans should have no truck with them. However, all is not total gloom, because, following our noble Friend's speech to the United Nations on 10 November, by a vote of 129 to 19 the United Nations adopted a motion urging the immediate settlement of this appalling situation. The nations voting against included such luminaries of democracy as Bulgaria, Cuba and Czechoslovakia. There were just 19 votes against a motion that urged an immediate settlement and the taking of immediate steps to end this appalling situation.
Just over a year ago Mr. Gorbachev described the Afghanistan situation as a "bleeding wound". A year later the bleeding has not been staunched. In fact, things have got worse. I hope that at the dinner being held at the White House tonight the President of the United States will not forget to remind Mr. Gorbachev that if he and his nation wish to be treated as moral equals of the nations of the free West they must withdraw from Afghanistan.
The United Nations report on the situation in Afghanistan said:
In spite of the political declarations concerning peaceful reconciliation, there has so far been no marked change in the human rights situation in the country: fighting is continuing, particularly in the border areas; many wounded persons are crossing the border and the number of refugees is increasing steadily".


As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury rightly said, the Afghan war is not adequately reported in this country. The public feel strongly about it, yet it seems no longer to command the sort of news attention that it once did. The British public should be aware that the situation approaches genocide. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have been killed and maimed, and 5 million Afghans have been forced to live outside their own country. Until the Soviets withdraw and leave this tragic country to try to rebuild its life and its role in the world, we would do well to resist the blandishments offered by the Soviet Union. We should return again for the moment to the principle so effectively used by Dr. Kissinger of the carrot and the stick.
I warmly endorse the Government's general line on this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, I welcome their support for the Afghan information office and hope that it will be continued and, if possible, increased. I welcome the robust line taken by my noble Friend at the United Nations. We should not forget that our words of support are cherished thousands of miles away by those heroes who are defying the wicked Russian campaign against them.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the nub of the problem is that the only test of their good faith in future, having gone this far on arms control and shown a desire for glasnost and a broader understanding throughout the world, is for the Soviets to behave in the way that they must behave if they wish to be treated as equals. Only by withdrawing their forces can the Soviet Union show the world that they have truly changed and desire to be treated as equals. I hope the Minister will agree that we must have irrevocable and unbreakable guarantees and commitments from the Soviets about the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) in raising the subject of Afghanistan on this night of all nights, when the festivities in Washington—which are of importance to the Western and Eastern worlds—may disguise the fact that one of the participants in those celebrations, the Soviet Union, still has about 115,000 troops in Afghanistan.
More serious than the number of troops it has in that poor country are the tactics against civilians which it has ceaselessly and mercilessly carried out during the eight years since the invasion, and I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) describing the horror that has occurred in that country. Too often the West has remained silent, or unaware of those events.
We should pay credit to ITN, and particularly to Mr. Sandy Gall, for bringing to our television screens images that otherwise would have been denied us. We should contrast the television coverage of the Vietnamese war, particularly in America — on my visits to the United States during that war I saw almost nightly the problems which most disturbed the American people—with the way in which the Soviets are able to keep out the press. The result is that we rarely see the images of the awful suffering in Afghanistan. Apart from the efforts of ITN, we are unable to appreciate the horror that can come to a country, when one third of the population is reckoned

authoritatively—over 5 million people—to have become refugees and more than 3 million of these have gone into Pakistan.
The horror of that must be taken into account when we consider our relationship with the Soviet Union. We cannot ignore it and pretend that, just because of glasnost and an INF treaty, we can imagine that the Soviet Union has the same criteria and moral values as ourselves.
I hope that in the days that follow the signing of the INF treaty, we do not slip into the comfortable assumption that we are dealing with a country that behaves as we in the West try to behave. That is self-evidently not the case. My desire to put that point on the record is one of the reasons why I wanted to speak this evening.
The difficulty facing the leader of the official Soviet-backed Government in Kabul, Dr. Najibullah, may perhaps provide the first clues why the Soviets are beginning to consider seriously firm action about withdrawal. They should not be considering just withdrawing 5 per cent. of their troops; they should be considering serious negotiations. That at least is something that Western Governments and many nonaligned countries have insisted upon in the resolution passed on 10 November in the United Nations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that in her speech.
I am delighted that the 12 members of the European Community not only endorsed the United Nations resolution, but found the time during the weekend summit in Copenhagen to go further:
The Twelve paid tribute to the Afghan people's spirit of independence … They believe there should now be … new impetus in the peace negotiations and call on the Soviet Union to:
withdraw all its troops by a date in 1988 according to a fixed timetable;
agree to the establishment of a transitional government, whose independence could not be contested, to make preparations for a new constitution and a genuine act of self-determination;
recognise that the participation of the Afghan resistance is essential to a comprehensive political settlement.
The last of those terms is vital. We cannot agree to a settlement in Afghanistan which leaves a quasi-Communist, Soviet-friendly Government in Kabul. The battle has been too vicious. We must insist upon some solution that guarantees independence for the country and self-determination
The difficulty has been that the seven or so groups of the Mujahideen have not always been able to be concerted in their efforts—other than their military efforts—partly as a result of geography and partly for local reasons. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will take it upon the Government and herself to take a lead in that matter. We might be able to encourage a formation of the Afghan resistance fighters perhaps around ex-King Zahir Shah. I understand that he now lives in Rome and is at least contactable. One of the Afghan rebel leaders visited this country recently and said that he believed that there was increasing support for the ex-king as a focal point to bring together otherwise diverse groups. That is essential if we are to give the help to that country which is so vital.
Western aid must continue. The United States is a major provider of such aid, and that aid enables Stinger missiles to be used by the Afghan resistance to such devastating effect. We have heard from ITN that the Soviet tactic for aircraft and helicopters was to fly low and


bomb not military targets but villages, and their accuracy was devastating. At least the Stinger enables the Afghans to force those helicopters and aircraft to heights where their accuracy is not as devastating, and so gives innocent civilians a chance of survival. Once a village has been bombed, whether or not accurately, most villagers become refugees. The dirty work of the Soviet Army is done in a different way, as those pitiful people cross the borders into Pakistan, which is already struggling to cope with the refugees there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has made most of the vital points, so my remarks are deliberately brief. My purpose is to underline the human tragedy in Afghanistan and the facts that the nation with which the Americans are negotiating in a "realpolitik" sense about an INF treaty is still practising atrocities that we do not consider acceptable for a civilised nation, and that we must judge the Soviet Union accordingly.
I urge the Government to continue their valiant efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan by ensuring that in every council on which we are represented we make a clear case that Western Governments find the continued Soviet presence in Afghanistan utterly unacceptable. That is why the statement in Copenhagen is so valuable and the overwhelming vote in the United Nations on 10 November so vital. I ask my right hon. Friend whether she can give us comfort by telling us whether any more can be done by individual Governments, particularly to encourage the Afghans to group around the ex-king, so that a sensible and credible alternative can be provided to permit self-determination in that so afflicted country.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I agree with the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that the timing of the debate has a happy relevance because of the superpower summit now taking place in Washington. We know that, after addressing themselves to the INF treaty, the two leaders will look at some major regional problems, and Afghanistan is the prime problem to be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Esher said, the declaration of the European Council at Copenhagen last Saturday is relevant. There is nothing in the declaration to which we take exception. Indeed, we endorse the key elements of it. The aim is to end the tragic human suffering in Afghanistan. We know that approximately 1 million people have died in that tragic and torn country. We condemn the continued violation of human rights, which have been well documented by Amnesty International over the years and which were set out graphically by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) in his realistic and well-composed speech. The refugees, numbering approximately 5 million—the largest single exodus from any country — should be allowed to return to their country from Pakistan and Iran. The ultimate aim is to make Afghanistan a genuine, independent and nonaligned country.
We also accept the call of the Copenhagen summit for a new impetus in the peace negotiations. That impetus is set out in three specific proposals of the Copenhagen summit. The first is that the Soviet Union should withdraw all its troops by a date in 1988 in accordance with a fixed timetable, and I agree with that because we yield to no one

in our condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and its continued occupation of that country.
The summit then called for the establishment of a transitional Government whose independence could not be contested, and in our judgment it is only by the formation of such a transitional Government that the way through to the objective of a non-aligned and sovereign Afghanistan can be effected. The summit also said that the participation of the Afghan resistance was essential to a comprehensive, political settlement.
The faults of the rebels have been detailed by other hon. Members — the element of corruption, the disunity among the rebels and the presence of Islamic fundamentalism in elements of the coalition in Peshawar. All that does not fit in well with the rather naive idealistic picture of the rebels sometimes painted by Conservative Members. Nevertheless, with all their faults, the rebels represent the necessary element to build the future of that tragically torn country.
The Twelve ended their declaration by saying that they remained
ready to contribute constructively towards the achievement of an acceptable settlement.
It is difficult to think of something specific that the Twelve can do to assist the Afghan people in that aim, but we can assist in a humanitarian manner in respect of the refugees in Pakistan. We endorse the efforts that the Government have made in that respect. There may be the possibility of helping to lean on the correct people to see whether an acceptable form of transitional Government can be achieved. However, that is probably more likely to result from the super-power summit than from anything that the Twelve can do.
As a result of our experiences in the 19th century we could have advised the Soviets on the danger of invading Afghanistan and becoming enmeshed in what is now their ninth year of occupation. The Afghan people are hardy, the terrain is hardy and the Afghan people will never lose. Even if they face reverses, their morale is now high because the Soviets have lost their air supremacy as a result of the supply of both Blowpipe and Stinger missiles to the rebels. We talk about glasnost, and everyone knows that the British Government must have connived at the transfer of Blowpipe missiles from Shorts in Belfast to the Central Intelligence Agency, and, thereafter to the Afghan rebels. In the spirit of glasnost, why will the Government not tell the British public what they are doing?
The Soviets now realise that they cannot win, and they dare not lose in a dramatic fashion. They perceive that they made a historic error in December 1979. A stalemate has been reached, but the lines of communication from the Soviet Union to Afghanistan are much easier than was the case when the United States was waging its war in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The Soviets have had to pay, and properly so, a major price over the years: an economic price, in the drain on their resources; a human price, with — it is said —between 30,000 and 40,000 casualties in the war; and, certainly, a price in terms of international good will. The vote in the General Assembly on 10 November has already been mentioned: a record majority of 104 against the Soviet position, which included even Iran. The Soviets have been working extremely hard on Iran in the context of the Gulf war over the past months, yet Iran felt the need to maintain its Islamic solidarity with the people of


Afghanistan. Let me say in passing that it is sad to see the names of some of those countries, particularly those that abstained in the vote at the General Assembly. Nevertheless, it is heartening to learn of such a record vote of protest against the Soviet position.
Mr. Gorbachev spoke in 1986 of the "bleeding wound." He himself inherited that commitment, and he finds himself in the difficult position of getting off the hook. As the United States learnt in Vietnam and perhaps has yet to learn in Nicaragua, local morale is more important than the most sophisticated military hardware. Mr. Gorbachev has now probably recognised that the stratagems that he has adopted over the past months in terms of damage limitation are clearly not working.
It seems pretty clear that the Soviets are not prepared to increase their commitment of military personnel and resources within Afghanistan. They have used a series of stratagems; for example, the replacement last year of President Babrak Karmal by Mr. Najib, who was thought to be a more acceptable individual; a so-called ceasefire; a national reconciliation; and the calling of a grand assembly of tribal leaders. All those strategems were designed, if possible, to lead the conflict along lines acceptable to the Soviet Union, but all of them appear to have failed. Indeed, it is said that Mr. Najib's position may well now be in danger.
Two weeks ago the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Vorontsov, met the United States State Department official, Mr. Armacost, and—it is said—indicated that during the current negotiations in Washington the Soviets would make a major statement about the timetable of troop withdrawals. We await with interest what will emerge from Washington. As I understand it, the position in September of this year was that the Afghans had offered a 16-month withdrawal period, while the Pakistani side announced that its maximum would be eight months. The eight-month difference would not seem to be unbridgeable if there were sufficient guarantees about what would happen during the interim period. Clearly, there has recently been a substantial degree of movement, and we hope that that can be taken further at the superpowers summit.
We ask ourselves whether the aim is clear, which is to arrive ultimately at an independent, non-aligned Afghanistan, which can chart its own future. What should now be our reaction? Do we wish to crow over the Soviets' discomfiture and exult in their embarrassment? Clearly, there are elements on the Right wing in the United States who rather use the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for those purposes. Do We seek to score points, or do we seek as far as possible to ease the way for the Soviets to withdraw, leading to the aim that I have mentioned of national sovereignty of the Afghan people?
We recognise the Soviet mistake, that tragic blunder, of invasion, and the human rights violations, which are well documented. But surely, ultimately, the most constructive thing that the West can do is to seek to help the Soviet Union out of the hole that it chose to dig for itself. The Soviet Union is also a proud country. There is no question of the Soviets scuttling from Kabul in the way that the Americans scuttled out of Vietnam. There must be a transitional Government, though not, I stress, a Government such as the Soviets are now seeking to have; one which is effectively under the control of their own nominees and which will be simply a Soviet puppet, with perhaps elements brought in from the rebel groupings.
In spite of all the hesitations that one has about the rebel groups—and there are said to be some differences between those rebels who are fighting within the country itself and the coalition in Peshawar, which is the favoured element of the West — there are the makings of an independent, non-aligned Islamic country. Perhaps here, as has been the case elsewhere, the real political problem is that of how to effect the transition. Spain had a king, and he played a major democratic role in easing that country from the Franco regime to the happy democracy that it now enjoys.
I note what has been said, for example, by the hon. Member for Esher, that perhaps, on lines not unlike those in Spain, a suitable figure for this transition would be the king, Zahir Shah, who resides in Rome.
I understand that he has said in terms that he would not co-operate unless he had the agreement of the rebels. I suspect that I met the same rebel leader as did the hon. Member for Esher. He indicated that although he represents one of the more moderate elements in the coalition, he would be in favour of such a solution. For the classicists among us, like the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), one might devise a formula like a rex et machina to resolve the tragedy in Afghanistan.
I believe that the British Government can play a role in encouraging and helping. We should show that we have a concern for Afghanistan. I make the point in passing, that if we showed that same concern for human rights, which is very proper in Afghanistan, elsewhere in the world, in areas such as South Africa and Central America, our credibility and the force of our arguments would be immeasurably improved. That said, we should shun cold war rhetoric and seek constructively to find a way forward, as set out in the declaration of the European Council, and say that a country such as Afghanistan, though geographically in the backyard of a super power, can nevertheless achieve national sovereignty and chart its own chosen course in the world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) for instigating this debate and to all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for their participation.
There is no doubt that the debate is timely. The eighth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is due within days. Last month a record number of countries—123 — again made it clear to the Soviet Union that Soviet troops should be withdrawn immediately and that the Afghans should be allowed their right to genuine self-determination.
As a number of hon. Members have said, three days ago in Copenhagen the European Council of the Heads of Government of the Twelve called on the Soviet Union to withdraw all its troops by a date in 1988, according to a fixed timetable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reinforced that message again with Mr. Gorbachev when she met him at Brize Norton.
Yet the position on the ground in Afghanistan remains the same. It is important that the international community, and the British people, as represented in the House, should pay tribute to the incredible fortitude of the Afghan people through all these long years—the same Afghan people who are the subject of aggressive military


campaigns. The United Nations special rapporteur has documented over 14,000 civilian deaths in the past year alone, and 49,000 in the previous two years. Some 5 million Afghans have fled their country, with some 3 million going to Pakistan. The exodus continues at 4,000 to 5,000 a month.
I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) in praising Sandy Gall for bringing to public attention what has been happening in Afghanistan. He and other journalists have done a valuable job.
However, it is not only what has happened in Afghanistan, it is what is continuing to happen and the costs that it is imposing on the people of Pakistan. A wave of terrorist bombing in recent months on Pakistan territory has caused hundreds of innocent deaths. We should pay tribute to the patience that has been shown by the Pakistan Government in the face of those pressures, and to the principled and moderate stance that it has taken in the negotiations thus far.
Above all, as hon. Members have said, this debate is timely because Mr. Gorbachev visited Britain yesterday and is engaged in discussions with the United States President today. The future of Afghanistan, sadly, lies in Soviet hands. It is for the new Soviet leadership to show by its actions on Afghanistan whether new thinking has permeated Soviet foreign relations.
We must recognise that there seem to have been changes in Soviet attitudes on Afghanistan in the past two years. At Soviet behest, the Kabul regime now talks of "national reconciliation" and of welcoming the resistance back. It also talks of paying due account to Afghan traditions and Islam. The Russians talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan and have dropped broad hints that a gesture on troop withdrawal might be forthcoming.
I have to ask, how far do the deeds match up with those welcome words? Do those welcome words have a foundation? The House must judge for itself. The so-called policy of national reconciliation has been on the Kabul regime's terms. It is known by the Afghan people for what it is. As my noble Friend the Minister of State said, this so-called national reconciliation is merely an invitation to capitulate.
I must tell the hon. Member for Swansea, East that I do not believe that the coming of Najib as president, under a new constitution rubber-stamped by a new assembly, shows the true face of so-called national reconciliation, particularly when one realises that he is a former secret policeman of KHAD.
It may be that outsiders are welcome in Kabul, but only if they are prepared to accept the continuing dominance of Moscow's client, the PDPA, which is the Afghan Communist party. Its leader recently made it clear that the PDPA intended to maintain the dominant position in the state. He has been appointed president under a new constitution, which gives the president sweeping executive powers.
Thus, one can sum up by saying that the efforts of Moscow and Kabul over the past year seem merely to have been designed to try to win on the political front what they have failed to win militarily. I do not believe that anyone has or should be deceived by that. The Russians have not yet withdrawn their troops. Instead, in this year's campaigns they seem to have been playing an even more

active part in offensive operations. I understand that morale among the regime troops remains, understandably, at rock bottom. If they were not fighting, perhaps it would be better.
We had hoped for progress at the United Nations talks but there has been only prevarication on the part of Moscow and Kabul. As the months go by in the delay between sessions, so the next so-called concession made by Kabul is more than cancelled out. Kabul's offer at the last session in September of a timetable of 16 months, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred, was so clearly not serious that it remains unclear when a new session can be expected to convene.
We support the unrelenting efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General's personal representative to bring about a successful conclusion to the talks. What is needed is a decision in Moscow that the time is now right for settlement. The Afghan people deserve no further delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury carefully and thoughtfully introduced the debate. I should say to him that the Government fully support the excellent work done by the Afghan information office in its efforts to provide factual reports of the situation on the ground and to build up public support in this country for the Afghan refugees and resistance. I have taken careful note of his comments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) with regard to the need for the Government's financial support to be increased. Certainly that will be considered carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury also talked about aid for Afghanistan. He referred to the immense effort made by international agencies and by private and voluntary organisations to help the Afghans who have become victims of the war. I entirely agree. The Government pay tribute to the excellent work done year after year by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross in their efforts to help the refugees and the war wounded. However, it is the private voluntary organisations such as Afghanaid and Health Unlimited that perhaps deserve most praise. They are working to help Afghans inside the country who have been deprived of services of all sorts for eight years.
Medical facilities are deplorable in many areas and it is only the lucky ones who are adequately treated or manage to reach the border. Food is short in some areas as a result of the deliberate destruction over the years of irrigation canals and the economic infrastructure. We express our admiration for all those who work in those organisations, often at great personal risk, in order to help the Afghan people.
The evidence of the deep concern felt by voluntary agencies in this country is provided in the recent report published by the British Refugee Council, in conjunction with 10 other voluntary agencies, including Oxfam, Christian Aid, Ockenden Venture, Salvation Army and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. That report gives a clear account of the problems facing the largest refugee population in the world, the large numbers of displaced persons inside the country and what needs to be done. I hope that that report will be widely read and digested as a valuable source of information about the real situation and the need for still greater efforts to help the Afghan people.
The Government attach considerable importance to the successful and satisfactory resolution of the Afghanistan problem. The Government will continue to provide substantial aid to the refugees and victims of the war. We will continue to do our best to inform international opinion about the real situation in that country. Information has become increasingly hard to come by because journalists face the threat of capture or worse as the Russians try to hide the true facts from the world. We admire the courage of the Afghan resistance and we welcome the way it has grown in political co-ordination. As the House may know my noble Friend the Minister of State met two leaders of the resistance alliance in London last week. It is clear to everyone involved in the debate and, I hope, to everyone outside the House that the resistance both inside and outside Afghanistan has to be involved in any settlement that takes place. That settlement will have to be on the terms of the people of Afghanistan and not imposed from outside.
It is high time that the suffering was brought to an end. We would much prefer to devote our resources to help the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Therefore, a new and urgent impetus is needed in the search for peace.
I understand that the Russians have certain concerns. They have said of late that they do not want bloodshed in Afghanistan after their withdrawal. They say that they have security interests on their border. They no doubt want the next Government in Afghanistan to be friendly to them.
It is high time that the Soviet Union ceased playing for time. The fact is that the United Nations settlement meets their concern that there should be no "non-interference". The best way in which to avoid bloodshed is to bring about a settlement which allows the refugees to return, involves the resistance and allows the Afghans themselves to sort out their own future. As in any situation where war has prevailed for many years, the transition to peace will not be easy, but there are ways forward if only the Soviet Union will bring itself to take the necessary decisions. Those decisions are not easy, but they must be taken. There is no other way forward.
The European Council at the weekend drew attention to the need for a transitional Government whose independence could not be contested to take charge during that difficult period. Such a credible transitional Government could put in hand the necessary preparations for independence, such as for a new constitution and for a genuine test of self-determination. This surely is the best way forward to build confidence in the run-up to the restoration of independence.
There has also been talk of Afghanistan achieving a neutral status. This might be another confidence-building development to help the new Afghanistan on its way.

Certainly there can be no solution which adds up to the Russians imposing a Government of their choice dominated by their stooges, on the Afghan people against their will.
Above all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said, and as the European Council has made clear, the Soviet Union should agree to withdraw its troops as soon as possible in 1988. It should send the Kabul regime back to the conference table at Geneva as soon as possible with instructions to this effect. That would raise confidence considerably among the refugees and the resistance. The Russians should accompany this, as the European Council has made clear, with an acknowledgement that they will allow the Afghans to form an independent Government which is freely chosen. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Swansea, East endorse what the European Council said at the weekend.
This cannot be a popular war for the Soviet Union. Almost the entire international community condemns it. Soviet men are being killed and wounded. For what? This year has been another year of military stalemate, a year of still further flows of refugees to Pakistan, and a year of grave and massive violations of human rights, as testified by an overwhelming majority of countries during deliberations on human rights at the General Assembly. It has been a year of efforts by the Kabul regime to broaden its base, without success.
Now is the time for a fresh start. The Government will take every opportunity in every forum to bring the illegal occupation of Afghanistan to an end. We shall try to contribute constructively to a settlement. A political settlement is available if only the Soviet Union can have the foresight to take it. We call on Mr. Gorbachev to do just that. We need an irrevocable guarantee from the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I may end by quoting what a Soviet father wrote to the General Secretary after losing his son in this pointless war:
Mikhail Sergeevich, I am not a politician nor a diplomat but only a simple Soviet citizen and it is, of course, difficult for me to make out the details of international affairs. But I would like to ask you, for the sake of what ideals and interests are the young lives of our sons being laid down in Afghanistan, how can this be combined with the perestroika which is taking place in our country? Please explain to me. I am deeply convinced of your power to stop this unnecessary sacrifice and tribute to the thoughtless undertakings of your predecessors. I implore you to stop this appalling bloodletting in Afghanistan in the same way as you have done so much that is useful in the two years of your leadership … … Peace, Mikhail Sergeevich, is needed by both large and small countries".
I think that all those here in the House would agree heartily with that sentiment. We want to see an end to the ravage of Afghanistan and we want to see a beginning to the freedom of her people.

Rating Reform (Scotland)

Mr. Tony Worthington: Let us start with a little-known fact. We meet here today on the first anniversary of the Second Reading of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. This is a fact of which few of us are aware and I am glad to enlighten the House with that piece of information.
Once legislation is put on the statute book, even after being as bitterly contested as the poll tax legislation, people usually settle down and accept it and it becomes part of the landscape. That is not happening in this case. As more and more people realise the significance of that Act, opposition to it mounts and mounts. It is now reaching much higher levels in Scotland and will go on to take over England and Wales as well.
For example, the Saturday before last, along with other members of the Labour party in Clydebank, I conducted the collection of a petition. I was amazed — it is a common experience of my hon. Friends as well—at the passion with which people were coming up to sign it. We found that we had collected 2,500 signatures within four hours with no pressure or harassment. Word got round that here was the opportunity to protest against the poll tax legislation. What is strange to me is how those 2,500 signatures and the thousands of signatures collected by my hon. Friends across Scotland count for nothing compared with what was alleged to be a tidal wave of revolt against revaluation.
Day by day, as the implications of this complex legislation emerge, its idiocies are becoming clear. In Scotland, with 3·9 million names on the poll tax register, there will be 800,000 changes to the register each year. On average in Scotland, between 12·5 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the people move within one year. In areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the population change addresses within a year.
The measured tones of a document from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show how bitterly resisted the poll tax roll will be. CIPFA stated, that canvassers will be required to be well trained, not only in community charge law, but also in interview techniques. They may well face resentment and, conceivably, hostility, and will need to be trained to cope with that.
We know that this legislation will be unpopular because most of the world has never had poll tax legislation, but where it has existed—for example, in Cape Breton—the poll tax has just been discontinued because it has been realised and accepted that only 30 per cent. of the theoretical take was collected by the tax authorities.
Once again, I give the Minister the opportunity to tell us what a prudent authority would allow for non-collection. The measured people of CIPFA talk in terms of only an 80 per cent. collection of the poll tax. As time goes by, that may well come to be seen as an optimistic figure. For the Government to introduce a piece of legislation in which they have made no calculation about what percentage will be collectable is the hallmark of irresponsibility.
Other idiocies are emerging. As the theme of the debate is the implementation of the poll tax, I should welcome guidance from the Minister as to his interpretation. I hope that we shall receive a reply on each of these matters.
I refer now to the exemption for the profoundly mentally handicapped. We welcome that concession, but would also welcome the Minister's interpretation of it. The CIPFA document contains a contradiction. It states that those who attend social work adult training centres need not necessarily be exempt from the poll tax because some of them, in theory, could go out to work. However, the document later states that it would be for the individual or his representative to prove severe mental handicap. It is envisaged that a simple declaration by a general practitioner will normally suffice.
The mind boggles at what may happen in GPs' surgeries. Knowing what happens now in terms of people who want to advance themselves on housing lists by trying to prove that their health is currently damaged by, for example, their nerves, we may have the unseemly spectacle, if the CIPFA advice is to be taken, of doctors being dragged in for the sad purpose of certifying, by a declaration, that someone is sufficiently mentally handicapped that they cannot understand the implications of the vote or the poll tax.
As this complex legislation reveals itself, we are also realising that the Government have thrust an enormous extra cost burden on local government. Strangely, the Government have little interest in improving the basic quality of the services that are offered by local government, but are quite happy to introduce a system of tax collection that involves enormous numbers of extra staff. If, for example, the district councils in my region of Strathclyde co-operated in acting as agents for the poll tax, they would need to take on only an extra 500 staff. However, if the districts decided that they would not co-operate, as is within their rights, with the collection of the poll tax and say that the levying authority is the region and that the region can get on with it, the regional council would have to take on an extra 1,000 staff to implement the poll tax. How can we afford this but not the many good services that would be of value?
If the Minister and the Government think that Opposition Members exaggerate the difficulties of the poll tax—I dare say they do—why have we waited so long for the Scottish Office to put out the necessary regulations and guidelines so that local authorities can get on with the job? Again, the CIPFA document stated that it was possible to bring legislation into operation on time, given some prerequisites, pre-eminent among which was the fact that the Government play their part in issuing the necessary guidelines. Where are the details of the rebate scheme? When will they emerge? I suspect that they are still a long way from unfolding.
The sheer complexities of going from a benefit system that is generally family-based, through the Department of Health and Social Security, to a benefit or rebate system under the poll tax, that is individually based, must cause the Minister more sleepless nights than Adjournment debates.
It is clear that the measure was sold in terms of accountability. That is at the heart of the Government's problems. It was said to make local authorities more accountable than they were under the previous system. A survey was published today in the Glasgow Herald and in The Scotsman showing that, if the poll tax had been introduced, 54 out of the 56 Scottish councils would have had an increase double that which would occur under the


rating system. Under the proposed poll tax system, the Government will control 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure.
It is eminently clear to everybody that the Government's actions are four times more important than those of local authorities in terms of setting local authorities' costs. The document that was produced today showed that the survey was conducted on the assumption that the Goverment will allow for 3 per cent. inflation. That is a common trick of the Government. They postulate that inflation will be 1 per cent., or 2 per cent. less than even they know it will be. That is an extra turn of the screw for local government. The effect is that, for every 1 per cent. that the Government under-fund for inflation, the poll tax will go up by 4 per cent. We have the hideous situation in which, once again, the Goverment will seek to blame local government for their actions.
The CIPFA report shows that, if the community charge had taken place in England and Wales for 1987–88, there is not one authority in England in which the change in spending would have equalled the change in the community charge. Hon. Members should think about that matter. Many local authorities in England may meet Government guidelines and behave in the way the Government want and regard as accountable, but not one is getting what the Government said they would get under the community charge — that is, an increase in the community charge that matches their actions.
I want to say a little more about the problem of underpayment. The Government are not facing their responsibilities in this respect. The CIPFA report says that about 80 per cent. payment of poll tax is expected. The consequence is that the rest of the population has to pay to make up for those who do not pay, with all the resentment that that will cause.
Local authorities face a major problem now with widespread under-payment of rates. I shall quote some Strathclyde figures for 1985–86. At the final notice stage, 131,000 people were behind with their rates, owing £80 million. At the summary warrant stage, there were 49,000 ratepayers owing £35·5 million. At the sheriff officer stage, there were 24,000 ratepayers owing £16·74 million. Many of those debtors will remain because they are business ratepayers, particularly the bigger debtors among them. The local authorities will have to take on a massive extra load of work and greater responsibility and they will be obliged to use the sheriff officers and the warrant sales system to pursue minute amounts of debt.
In Scotland, with about 400,000 people receiving supplementary benefit, those paying 20 per cent. of demands might have a bill for £50. Is it seriously suggested that local authorities should pursue debts of that size with all the associated administrative costs? If local authorities do not collect those debts, any irate poll tax payer might take them to court for not diligently pursuing debts. If authorities do not collect those debts, however, a plague of non-payment will spread the length and breadth of Scotland, as community charge demands are treated like parking tickets. That problem has to be faced.
My penultimate question for the Minister is why the idea of the uniform business rate in Scotland has collapsed. I notice that in the White Paper "Paying for Local Government" published by the Department of the Environment—it would be illegal if it was published by local authorities as it breaks the law applying to them—poll tax is being sold to the English public in terms that

the non-domestic rate paid by businesses and institutions will be set by the Government at the same level across England. I seem to remember the same sort of statement in Green Papers published by the Scottish Office. The uniform business rate was a central plank in the scheme to free business from the burden of wicked local government constantly putting up the rates, and was designed to prevent the penalising of business for being in a high rates area. It was to set business free so that it could thrive in a high-rates area. What has happened to all that? Where has that idea gone? Why did the Scottish Office forget about it? Is it perhaps because it worked out what that would mean? According to figures worked out by the surveyors James Barr, in 1985–86 Strathclyde business would have benefited by £59 million. That extra money would have liberated them to create jobs, in the language of the Government.
On the other hand, Dumfries and Galloway, which may be closer to the Minister's heart, would have suffered to the tune of £5 million if the uniform business rate had been introduced. I wonder why the uniform business rate has collapsed; it was one of the two or three major justifications for the legislation. When will it be introduced in Scotland, as it apparently is still intended to be in England and Wales?
I hope that the Scottish Office will belatedly realise that the Labour party is being given a massive asset in Scotland, as it was in the general election, and, increasingly, as it is in England and Wales. At least for the sake of your self-preservation, I say to the Minister: "Realise the error of your ways".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind hon. Members that the House should be addressed through the Chair.

Mr. Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) put well the case against a community charge or poll tax.
I want to make two points, but before I do so I want to express the concern felt by most local authorities about the sheer cost that they are incurring this year in trying to implement the legislation. In Lothian region alone, more than £1 million has had to be spent on buying capital equipment and on other staff costs. I hope that the Minister will urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to think again about the fact that that additional cost is attracting penalty—in Lothian's case —at the rate of £1·30 for every pound spent. It seems unfair that the region should be penalised for something that it had no wish to impose in the first place. I understand that the Secretary of State has turned his face against abolishing these penalties. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to think again about them.
The difficulties of the poll tax can be illustrated in a number of ways, but in Edinburgh and Glasgow one specific class of property or residence that will suffer greatly under the poll tax legislation is that lived in by those who are unfortunate enough to live in houses in multiple occupation. Such houses are basically bed-andbreakfast establishments that have grown up as a result of the Government's social security regulations, which are generous to landlords. Large numbers of people congregate in those houses and pay rent to people who


often live on the fringes of society, perhaps having drifted out of some undesirable activities. Such people are a cause of concern in both cities and have come to public attention because of some of the goings on in their establishments.
In Edinburgh, about £9 million of public money is paid to these landlords every year by way of rent. No one knows how many people live in their houses. One of the problems that the responsible officer in the local authority will meet is that of finding out how many people live in them. Until he knows that, he will not know how much poll tax should be paid. He has a choice: he can go along and knock on the front door, greet the first tenant he meets and ask him how many people live there. In my experience, and that of the district and regional councils, even the people living in such establishments sometimes have no idea of how many people live there. Alternatively, the region might take the view that in such a property the collective community charge ought to be levied. The difficulty here is that in order to fix the collective community charge, one still has to know how many people are living in the property.
Experience has shown that landlords are reluctant to say how many people are living in a property, because that might expose them to difficulties regarding fire and health regulations. It might also provide a useful indicator to the Inland Revenue about how much tax a landlord should be paying. Questions might be asked by the DHSS about exactly how much money is being paid out in respect of a property.
These properties are characteristed by the fact that the owners are very secretive. That is one of the problems that the collecting authority will encounter when it tries to excise the community charge from the residents living there. However, there is more to it than that. It applies not only to houses in multiple occupation, but to all rented property. As soon as the community charge is introduced there should be some provision to enable landlords to reduce the rent by the amount paid in rates. There is no guarantee that that will happen. Earlier in the Session I asked a question about this and was assured by the Minister that rents would be reduced. I wrote to him asking how he could be so sure, and I am still waiting for an answer. Perhaps when the Minister replies to this short debate he will be able to tell me how he can force landlords to reduce the rent by the amount payable in respect of rates. There is no guarantee that that will happen, and many tenants have no idea how much of their rent is allocated to rates.
There is also the problem of rebates. One of the problems about houses in multiple occupation is that the residents tend not to live in them for very long —perhaps for a few weeks or months at most. Rebates can take a long time to be processed by the district councils. What will happen when they are processed? How can we be sure that they will go back to the tenant? That problem will arise in future, because when a tenant is living in such an establishment he will be liable for his pro rata share of the community poll tax. If that tenant moves away, how can we be sure that the rebate will he paid to the tenant by the landlord and that the landlord will not try to take from the tenant a full year's community charge as opposed to the amount incurred for the short period during which the tenant will remain in the premises?
I do not think that the Government have addressed problems of that sort, and sometimes I wonder whether

they have even concerned themselves about houses in multiple occupation. Certainly, when requests have been made about other aspects of houses in multiple occupation, the Government have been found sadly wanting. There is a small number of people involved and a comparatively small number of establishments. However, they illustrate the problems that will face regional councils within the next 18 months. They will have to employ large staffs simply to keep account of the number of people living in these premises and of the movement of people.
In my constituency there is a turnover of 20 per cent. in residents during each year. That is because the constituency is predominantly one of small houses, and people live in them for a couple of years and then move to bigger houses when they decide to start families. Elderly people die and their places are taken by new residents. It will be a mammoth task to keep account of who is living in the properties and, therefore, who should be expected to pay the community charge.
The sordid business of debt collection is likely to become a growth industry as many people struggle to meet their obligations to pay the poll tax—especially at the present time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, one of the problems faced by councils is that they are waiting for over 90 regulations, none of which has been laid in its final form. That presents formidable difficulties for assessors all over Scotland. One of the regulations that I would like to see soon is the one that will deal exactly with the system of rebate that we can expect to operate as soon as the Act is in force.
As a result of the social security changes tabled by the Secretary of State for Social Services recently, in the Lothian region alone about 35,000 people will lose out. Under the community charge legislation everybody must pay 20 per cent. It appears that many people, even those claiming what will then be the maximum rebate, will have to pay more than that.
I fear that neither the Government nor, sadly, a large number of people in Scotland realise that whereas many people receive 100 per cent. rebate in respect of rates, they will now have to pay something. I spoke to a man who thought his wife would not have to pay because she did not work. In fact, everybody will have to pay something, and for that reason the rebate scheme must be introduced quickly. The Government must give this matter urgent attention because it is causing great anxiety to those who will receive the rebates and those who will be expected to operate them.
The regulations are important because, to compile the register for the poll tax, the assessors will have to send forth a large number of canvassers to knock on every door throughout Scotland to find out who lives there. This should act as a warning to hon. Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales, for the Government have consistently said that this legislation will not infringe civil liberties or impinge on people's privacy.
The canvassers, at any rate as the regulations in draft form indicate, will be required to find the names of everybody—not just those who are 18 and over or even 16 and over — living in the house. I understand that, despite Government assertions to the contrary, assessors are using the electoral register as the basis of their register for the poll tax. That is understandable. It is the only register containing the names of people living in houses throughout the country. In other words, they are using the


register that gives people the right to vote to compile a register that will require them to pay for that very privilege.
There is already evidence that the number of people registering is diminishing this year. It is perhaps too early to tell—we have only the draft register—but the figures represent a disturbing trend. Nor should Conservative Members assume that those coming off are Labour voters. My information is that this reduction is occurring across the board, meaning that there is no party political advantage to be gained from what is happening.
People will take away from themselves the right to vote because they will not be able, or will be unwilling, to pay. That could have serious repercussions. If people are pushed away from the register, they will be excluded from the democratic process, and that is bound to have worrying consequences in the future.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Is my hon. Friend aware that figures published in Fife yesterday suggest that whereas the registrar was looking forward to an increase of nearly 1,000 on the new draft register, there has been a reduction of 2,260 on the electoral register? This reinforces his argument that the poll tax is linked in the public perception with the electoral register. That could do untold damage and lessen the link between the accountability factor and the payment of the poll tax.

Mr. Darling: I was aware that the Fife register showed a reduction. I believe Fife is typical of other Scottish regions. Everyone assumed that the assessors were bound to use the electoral register as the basis for the poll tax register. It was common sense that they would, and only a few Ministers persisted in saying that that would not happen.
I want to stress another point that is a cause for concern. Ever since the poll tax was mooted, there has been a dispute between local authorities and the Government over exactly how much the poll tax would be in each region in Scotland. That same argument is now raging in England and Wales. The Government have upped their figures on two or three occasions since the first figures were published. In Lothian region the Government figure is £260 and the regional council estimates, according to current expenditure and grant levels, that the poll tax will be £350 per head.
The Government do not dispute the figures given by the regional councils which, after all, will have to set the poll tax. However, they assume that local authority expenditure will be reduced. That is a dangerous assumption, not because the local authorities have anything against reducing public expenditure and do not believe in spending public money for the sake of it, but because the need within regions and districts will not go away. If the Government believe that it would somehow be acceptable to reduce the poll tax at the expense of reducing services in schools or reducing funds for shoring up bus services, they are sadly mistaken. Those problems will not go away, and they cannot simply be pushed under the carpet.
As has been said before, and doubtless will be said again, I believe that while there has been a great deal of unhappiness in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom about the advent of the poll tax, unlike any other piece of legislation that I can remember, the anger is mounting. It is not diminishing. It will not go away.
This legislation offends against a sense of public decency and fairness. That is one reason why the Government suffered such a rebuff at the polls in Scotland in June. Although I do not care whether the Government are rebuffed in England and Wales, people living there have good reason to be fearful about the legislation. For once, the Scottish legislation points to the fearful consequences of legislation that was born of panic and prejudice. It has brought no good to anyone in Scotland.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I want to begin by commending the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) not just on the way in which he introduced the debate, but on having the perspicacity to choose the subject. This is an appropriate time in the political calender, if not the time of day, to discuss this very important subject. I also congratulate him on concentrating on the implications and implementation of the poll tax plans. It is not too late to mount a full-scale and continuing attack on the Government's poll tax plans. The House is well served by this debate.
I am surprised, if not astonished, that we did riot hear more complaints from English Conservative Members during the introduction of the Scottish proposals. The conclusion that I arrived at was that the Conservatives in Scotland were subject to an unthinking deference to the personal whim of the Prime Minister, who, we are all aware, insisted that domestic rates should be abolished, irrespective of the consequences, simply to honour a pledge that she made in 1974. 1 had high hopes that when the matter was brought south of the border into the English domain, English Conservatives would have more stomach for the fight and put up more stout objections to the obvious flaws in the English Bill. However, that looks as though it will not happen and I am very worried about it.
The Government can be accused of callous indifference to the many sustained objections to the poll tax that have been raised in Scotland and England from all quarters while the Scottish legislation was before Parliament and during the progress of the English legislation. The changes have shown a total disregard for the serious and far-reaching implications that the poll tax will inevitably leave in its wake.
I confine my remarks to three areas, the most significant of which is the essentially unfair nature of the tax. A flat-rate contribution paid by all, irrespective of income, is indefensibly inequitable, and we should never forget that. Although the arguments against that aspect of the charge have been made previously, we should not allow anyone to forget that that is the principal objection to the charge.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the proposed changes in the social security system, which mean that everybody will pay at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax bill, taken together with the proposed cuts in the housing benefit that will be implemented next spring, will undoubtedly mean a reduced standard of living for the poorest in the community, who will be offered Government loans from the social fund to make ends meet. That is scandalous. I subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that the sooner the


poll tax rebate regulations are laid and we can measure the extent of that poverty, the better it will be for everyone, inside and outside the House.
Increased poverty is a certain and unavoidable implication of the poll tax in Scotland. The figures issued recently by the Scottish Office, based on current estimates, show that almost 997,000 households will lose financially from the poll tax. I think the estimate is official. I know from my constituency postbag that the implications of the poll tax have not yet fully dawned on the people in my constituency. In Berwickshire, according to the most recent figures published by the Government, the poll tax charge is estimated to be £170 per head, with an additional water charge of £24 per head, and the maximum estimated rebate of £136 per head, leaving £58 per head per annum to be found. Similar figures are given for Roxburghshire; a poll tax charge of £176 per head, an additional water charge of £24 per head, and the maximum estimated rebate of £141, leaving a minimum poll tax payment of almost £60 per head. The figures have not yet sunk in on the Borders region, and I do not know whether that is the case in other parts of the country.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be no rebate at all, as far as we are aware, on the water charge?

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman has taken the words straight from my mouth, because I was about to add that that is the case. Whatever else is true, in the Borders region that fact is not yet appreciated. When it is fully appreciated, the Government may find the proposals even more unpopular than they appear to be now.
The estimates ignore several additional important factors; for example, the gearing effect which was discussed earlier. Assuming the increase in commercial rates is limited to the increase in the retail prices index, a greater burden will inevitably fall on domestic poll tax payers, and that is causing concern. In addition, the estimates ignore the effect of substantial numbers of legal non-payers, or partial payers. Students will pay only 20 per cent., and no grant from central Government will make up for the loss, which will have to be borne by local authorities. The position of Lothian region, which has 26,000 full-time students, the equivalent of 20,800 legal non-payers who will have to be carried by the local authority — has not been taken into account in the estimates.
Residents of nursing homes and hospitals and the severely mentally handicapped are technically exempt. Local authorities will have to carry the shortfall for those people and for 18-year-olds who are still at school. That does not even take account of those who may evade the tax. If such evasion is taken into account, it could mean that, after taking proper account of the additional factors that the Government have not recognised, the community charge will be 5 per cent. higher than expected.
The potential loss to local authorities should be made clear. The Government should make a realistic estimate of what the local authorities will face in regard to the percentage of poll tax payers who will evade payment with the result that its collection will be unsuccessful.
The second major factor that has been ignored by the Government is the implementation cost. That cost has been rehearsed at some length in the two earlier

contributions. The Borders regional council has estimated that it will cost 50 per cent. more to administer the poll tax than the domestic rate. The Minister is aware that the Borders regional council is neither profligate nor particularly politically antagonistic to the Government. That council is not guilty of any political bias or anything else. However, it has estimated that 22 additional staff will be required, and that represents an increase in expenditure of £430,000 a year. A further cost of £300,000 will be incurred as a result of upgrading existing computer systems. Therefore, it is particularly galling to consider the costs of the propaganda campaign upon which the Government have presently embarked. That campaign makes it even more difficult to reconcile local authority costs incurred as a result of the implementation of the poll tax.
The third implication, about which I am particularly interested, is the whole question of freedom of information and personal privacy. The poll tax presents the potential for the serious erosion of civil liberties. This matter has also been rehearsed by the two earlier contributions. The system that will be used to adminster and enforce the community charge will inevitably lead to greater Government control over individuals and their civil rights.
Poll tax arrears may have to be pursued by reference to bus pass applications, the personal files of local authority housing departments or the files of housing associations. I know that in the past mention has been made of the protection of social work files. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say something about that. I do not think that the Data Protection Act 1983, so far as it goes, affords adequate protection of safeguards against the transfer of personal information from one local government department to another. The right hon. Member for Glasgow Govan (Mr. Millan) has rightly made strong representations to the Government about this issue.
Local authority officials may well come under quite unacceptable pressure and be obliged to resort to unacceptable practices, such as the cross-examination of former neighbours in their attempts to enforce payment of outstanding poll tax arrears.
Will the Minister say something about tied cottages? In Scottish rural areas there is a great deal of uncertainty whether special provisions will apply to farm workers living in tied accommodation. Have the Government had any second thoughts about the appeals system that applies in Scotland as opposed to the appeals system that has been suggested for England? Perhaps I have missed the announcement on that matter. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about it tonight.
I am very worried about the position of hostels for the homeless and for battered wives. As those hostels will be in the same category as houses in multiple occupation, I join the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central in expressing concern about that.
The timetable and the necessary regulations are urgently required. I hope that the Government will get on and publish those regulations so that we can learn what they really have in mind regarding the implementation of this pernicious piece of legislation.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My concern about the poll tax relates not only to its


unfairness, its attack on democracy and its erosion of civil liberties. What concerns me is its impracticality, and how it affects the low-paid, the unemployed and young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has given an excellent technical analysis of the poll tax. Its imposition will inevitably mean a bureaucracy of registration and collection which will discriminate against the less able in our community. Such problems are not new, however. It may he timely and seasonal to remind the House of that earlier registration exercise which so hurt the poor and most vulnerable. Let me read an extract from the Gospel according to St. Luke:
At that time the Emperor Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Roman empire. Everyone then went to register himself, each to his own town. Joseph and Mary went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to the town of Bethlehem. He went to register with Mary — she was pregnant and when the time came for her to have her baby she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger—for there was no room for them to stay at the inn.
It is the people of today — the low-paid, the unemployed and young people—whom the imposition of the poll tax will leave with no room at the Tory inn —about whom I am concerned. The unemployed, the elderly, the young and the low-paid cannot afford further taxation on their already meagre finances. The poll tax will lead to family break-ups: many young people will have to leave their homes because of their inability to find the money. We in Scotland are about to see the creation of a new breed of nomad. Our young people will move from place to place looking for somewhere to sleep. Eventually, cardboard cities—known in other countries as shanty towns—will spring up in our communities.
This unfair and unjust poll tax must be stopped in its tracks now.

Mr. Frank Doran: In Scotland, the poll tax legislation will be implemented on 1 April 1989, and on the best professional advice — as has already been mentioned by some of my colleagues — local authorities were told that the secondary legislation which is necessary for the full implementation was required by September 1987. The Government have still not published the regulations. Indeed, rumours are emanating from St. Andrew's house — I shall not call them leaks, for obvious reasons — that the Government have not published the regulations because they cannot work out what to put into them, so hastily prepared and ill thought out is the measure. Meanwhile, the local authorities must make necessary preparations with only the skeleton of the Act, without the meat of the detailed regulations.
This is a bad tax. It is regressive, and takes no account of the ability to pay. At its heart is the desire of the present Government to weaken our structure of local government and local democracy. The philosophy that argues that accountability does not exist in the present arrangements, and that those previously exempted from paying rates were somehow careless about how they cast their votes, is insulting and patronising. But that, of course, is nothing new for this Government.
However, I want to escape from the flawed philosophy behind the measure and consider its practical application. In the first place, there is the cost of implementing the poll tax in Scotland. The Government have blindly assured us

that there should be little or no extra cost to local authorities. If there are substantial extra costs, in the Government's view they can only be further examples of local government profligacy.
Let me look at the authority that I know best, Grampian regional council — not, I regret to say a Labour-controlled council. In a recent report to the council, the chief executive stated that the cost of implementing the poll tax in the Grampian area would be a staggering £2—456 million, which is additional revenue expenditure and includes loan charges on capital equipment. Before Grampian regional council provides one single service or meets one statutory responsibility or pays one other single overhead, it will require to levy a poll tax of £6.46 for every adult in the region, a charge just to pay for levying the tax in the first place.
Secondly, there is the cost of the poll tax to the individual taxpayer. The Government, through the Scottish Office, have issued figures for anticipated rates of poll tax, as we heard discussed earlier. These apply to each region and district in Scotland. In Aberdeen city, the Government estimate is for a rate of £200 per adult per annum. The Government figures ignore two very important aspects. I have already mentioned the cost of implementing the tax; the other is the very real difficulty that will be experienced in the collection of the tax. I will go into this in some detail, because I think that it is important, particularly for my own area.
The director of finance for Grampian region has estimated, in line with other directors of finance throughout Scotland, that his region will be extremely lucky to achieve a register which is 90 per cent. accurate. There are already signs that, in order to avoid the poll tax, individuals will avoid registration. In my own constituency I have just received the latest draft electoral register: the number of electors registered to vote in Aberdeen, South has dropped from approximately 63,000 on the current register to approximately 58,000 on the new draft register. I have suddenly lost 5,000 voters. I would like to think that this drop is the result of greater accuracy in the returns, but I have severe doubts.
Then there is the problem of collecting the tax. Again in the view of Grampian region's director of finance, the region will be extremely lucky to collect 90 per cent. of the poll tax from those who do get on to the register. In round figures, only 80 per cent. of poll tax due will be collected in my area—and we must remember that that is at best. Other areas in Scotland will be no different. Someone will have to pay for the shortfall, and it will be the responsible members of the community who register and pay. Taking account of the shortfall in collection, the annual rate of poll tax in my area will be not the £200 estimated by the Government, but at least £250 per adult per annum.
Let me turn to the less advantaged— the poor, the sick and the pensioners. In 1988, for the first time, these categories of people will receive a bill for 20 per cent. of their rates. In 1989, they will receive a bill for the poll tax. The Government have sought to assure us that this group will not lose; they will, we are told, receive an extra payment as part of their income support. There is a great deal of dishonesty here on the part of the Government. in the first place, there will be no rebate on the community water charge; that is a substantial change from the present position. Presumably the Government, in separating out


the water charge, envisage the day when the service will be privatised and water will be paid for just like every other utility.
However, despite this fundamental change, the Government have adhered rigidly to the position that the poor will pay only 20 per cent. of their poll tax. That is, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright and cruel deceit. For my constituents, who have hitherto enjoyed a full 100 per cent. rebate, the figure that they will have to pay will be not 20 per cent. but nearer 31 per cent., and on the levels of income that we are considering that is a very substantial increase.
On the Government figure of £200 per adult, £27 represents the water charge. My constituents who are eligible for the full 80 per cent. rebate will pay a total of £61.60 per annum. For a pensioner couple, that means £123–20 per annum. On the Government's figures, they had been led to believe that they would have to find £40 each, which was bad enough; a more accurate figure than that given by the Government, taking into account collection difficulties, would be £77 a year per adult — £154 a year for a pensioner couple in my constituency. That is a staggering £3 a week.
I have seen the reaction of pensioners in my area. I have talked to them about the poll tax. They were afraid of what £40 a year would mean to them. I do not know how they will react to the possibility that the true figure is likely to be £77 a year each.
Of course, the Government will tell us that the whole of the extra cost will be met by increases in the new income support. That is just not true. Firstly, the Government figures are based on only 20 per cent. of poll tax being paid, not the 31 per cent. which my constituents will pay. Secondly, even the combined effect of an increase below the rate of inflation and the application of an average amount, to take account of the poll tax payment, means a substantial reduction in the weekly pension benefit or income support.
This is a mean vindictive Government. The poor, weak and vulnerable will pay for the benefits that those who are better off will receive from the poll tax. It is clear that there is a section of society about which the Government care very deeply — those in employment or those with a substantial income who can afford private education and health care and the inflated house prices of the south-east. However, there is a section about whom the Government care little or nothing—the poor, the sick, the weak, the vulnerable, the pensioners and the low-paid, such as nurses and other health workers.
In the election in June the advantaged and disadvantaged united in Scotland in opposition to the Conservative party. One of the principal catalysts was the poll tax legislation. This arrogant, complacent and dogmatic Government have a sair lesson coming to them when they try to implement the legislation in England.

Mr. John Maxton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for introducing the debate and, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, for having the wisdom to choose this subject. I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for their contributions.
We have heard—with new points having been made in the debate—yet again about the problems facing the Government and the opposition that is building up about the gross unfairness of this tax, its undemocratic nature and the its unworkability. It is on its unworkability and difficulties that local authorities face that I shall concentrate my remarks. I shall concentrate on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report, to which some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire have referred.
The report came out in the summer and was greeted by the Government as the bible that local authorities would have to use to implement the poll tax. We were mocked by Ministers and the Secretary of State when, on Second Reading and in Committee, we criticised the unworkability of the poll tax. The Government said, "The experts have told us that the poll tax is workable; you were wrong all along."
The report was drawn up not by elected Members but by officials and experts who have tried to understand the poll tax system.
It is extremely difficult to obtain, unless one has £4,000 to throw around. My office has asked the Scottish Office time and time again whether I, as Front Bench spokesman on local government finance, could have a copy of it, and the answer has been a consistent no. The only way that one can read it is to go to the Library, but one is not allowed to remove it.
On page 2 the report says:
The system of community charge is capable of an operable implementation by April 1989, given: rapid response to the issues identified in this report; adequate additional financial resources being made available to authorities by increased section 94 consents, realistic adjustment to current expenditure guidelines and rate support grants.
In other words, it is clear that it must be done quickly.
The report continues:
A rapid response is important in: framing certain areas of regulation as identified in the report, most notably those defining liability for the community charge and the format for the register; a response by the end of September 1987 has been promised by the Scottish Office on these areas.
A further reason why it is important is in:
defining the specification of and interface with the community charge rebate system.
Where are we in this? The timetable in the CIPFA report says that if the community charge is to be implemented on 1 April 1989, the collection of information for the register should already have started and that the canvassing and distribution of forms must start on 1 April 1988; that is, in three and a half months' time.
Some of us have been deluded into thinking that there were three separate stages to the operation: first, the register system for which one would have to devise a computer programme so that one could feed in all the information from the register once it had been drawn up; secondly, a collection system, and one would have to have a computer for that; and thirdly, a rebate system, which would also require a computer programme. However, if one examines the report from CIPFA, one sees that that is not the case—far from it. If the tax is to be collected properly and efficiently, one has to have three different computer programmes all interfaced to each other or one or two computer programmes covering all three parts of the poll tax. One cannot have one computer programme for the register, one for the collection and one for the rebate system. That will not work. They have to be


brought together. That means that the whole system has to he devised and the programmes written and drawn up long before 1 April 1988.
I accept that draft regulations have been issued to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities — and, I assume, to other local authorities—for consultation on the format of the register and the type of form that will be issued. However, although there have been some meetings, the written response from COSLA has still not been given. The final regulations on the format of the register, which are to be laid before the House, have not been published.
Some draft regulations have been issued on the collection system but, again, we have had no written response from COSLA, which is the major organisation concerned, and no regulations have been published. The only regulation published so far has been that bringing the law into force. The Government promise that there will be a response in September, but CIPFA says that the regulations have to be laid in August if the system is to work on 1 April 1989.
We have heard nothing about the rebate system. We cannot have the other two systems unless the local authorities — it probably will not be local authorities, because they will probably have to hire private companies --can feed into their computer programmes the whole rebate system. Unless they do that, the whole system will collapse and the tax will not be collectable on 1 April 1989. We have not heard one word from one Minister, either English or Scottish, on how the rebate system will operate. For example on 1 April 1988 when the new social security regulations come into force the level of benefit to be paid will be based on the family. However, the poll tax is an individual tax. Therefore, a social security system based on the family will be married to a tax based upon the individual. I do not know how that will work. The Minister has a responsibility to tell us.
Another small example is the position of students. They will have to pay only 20 per cent. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire raised an important point when he asked who makes up the rest. Will there be a grant from the Government to cover it? We do not know. What about a student who has a wife? He is jointly and severally liable and, as a student, he automatically has to pay only 20 per cent. However, is his wife elegible for rebate? Nobody knows how the rebate system will operate and, until we do, the rest of the system cannot be brought into force.
The regulations should have been laid in August. CIPFA makes it quite clear that the system of community charge is capable of implementation by 1 April 1989 only given a rapid response to the issues raised in its report. There has not been such a response. It is impossible to get the system set up in three and a half months. The Government have first to lay the regulations. We are as opposed to the tax as ever we were—more so because our people's opposition to it is growing all the time. We shall not let the regulations through without praying against them and debating them.
Local authorities will have to take on staff to study the regulations. They will have to buy computers and employ experts to write programs. Staff will have to be well trained to get the information that the new register requires. I accept that the electoral register will be an important source of information, but we believe that people are already taking their names off the register to avoid poll tax.
The new register requires much more information, however. The date of birth must be included, for example. There must be a recognised responsible person in the household. I dare say that there are some households where there are none, but what will happen with houses in multiple occupation or blocks of flats? Who will be the responsible person there? Will there be more than one?
Information about students must be recorded. Students must say where they are at college, give their address when at college, and state their course of study. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security may look aghast, but many people will find the form difficult to fill in. I found it difficult to follow the directions.
Hundreds of people will have to be employed to collect the necessary information. If some local authorities think that it will be possible to employ the same middle-aged, middle-class ladies to compile the electoral register, they have another thought coming with regard to areas such as Castlemilk. If I was collecting information for the poll tax register, I would not want to go near some areas of Glasgow unless I had at least four policemen or Securicor men with me. There is no question about it: such people will be in dire trouble.
All this has to be done by 1 April 1988. That is when information for the register must have been collected. It will take six months to collect the information and compile the first draft register, so we are talking about October or November. Then people will have the right of appeal to remove or add names prior to it becoming the final register for the collection of the first tax on 1 April 1989.
A local authority cannot decide what level of poll tax it will collect until it knows how many people are on the register, because it will need that information to work it out. CIPFA says that the level of tax and how and when it will be collected will have to be decided by 31 January 1989.
The Minister may dispute it, but that is even now impossible. The Government are already too late. It cannot be done. If they try to push on with the implementation of this tax on 1 April 1989, it will be an administrative nightmare. Local authorities will be in a shambles. People will be missing from the registers and people will not be in place to collect the tax. There will be no rebate system, so some will pay nothing, and those who should be getting rebates will be paying the tax in full.
I ask the Minister to promise the House two things. First—

Mr. William McKelvey: Scrap it.

Mr. Maxton: I should like him to do that, and in the end he may have to.
I hope that the Minister will say that it is not now possible to collect the tax by 1 April 1989 and that the Government will suspend the operation for one year and implement the tax throughout the United Kingdom on 1 April 1990. I accept that the same shambles may apply in England, but let us accept that they will have learnt from the Scottish experience.
If the Minister is not prepared to delay for a year, can he at least ask the same experts who drew up the CIPFA report to go to local authorities, investigate what is happening and give him another report on whether it is feasible to implement the tax on 1 April 1989? If not, will


he then give the commitment that he will back off? I hope that the Minister is capable, in the time that he has left, of answering the questions that I and others have raised.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been raised, but the timetable that I have been set is tight.
This has been an interesting and useful debate. Some of the points raised are worth developing and I shall try to cover them in the few minutes that I have to do so. Opposition Members talk about anxiety about the community charge, but they are the cause of much of that anxiety. Despite the scares, alarms and assertions that the new system cannot be implemented by 1 April 1989, I can assure the House that we remain on course to secure our objective of introducing the community charge in Scotland from that date and abolishing at that time the discredited domestic rating system.
At no time during the passage of the Act did we make any secret of the fact that the timetable that we were setting ourselves would be a tight one. Nor do I make a secret of the fact that much remains to be done. But recently, in the House and outside, we have been hearing — notably from politicians, but not from local authority administrators—and we have heard again tonight, that the timetable simply cannot be met. Their assertions are ill-founded and irresponsible. It is our firm view that the necessary preparatory work will be completed in time to enable the community charge to be brought in on 1 April 1989 as provided for in the Act.
It might be helpful if I make a few general remarks about what implementation involves. It involves three main processes. Again, it might be helpful to the House — and I am sure that it will be helpful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) — if I were to describe these processes and explain how much we have done on each of them since the Bill was enacted.
First, the commencement order for the Act was made on 18 August, some four months ago. It brought the main provisions of the Act into force on 14 September. The main effects of the order were that, from that date, regional and islands assessors also became community charges registration officers, and that regional and islands councils came under a duty to provide them with sufficient staff, accommodation and other resources to enable them to carry out their functions. Local authorities are also required to prepare the systems for billing and collecting the community charges. It is a matter of fact that every regional and islands council in Scotland is now getting on with the job.
Secondly, there are the various sets of regulations to be made under the various powers of prescription in the Act. This point was raised by the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), as well as by the hon. Member for Cathcart. A number of the powers are fall-back powers in the sense that they need not be exercised unless change becomes necessary in the light of experience. However, regulations in a number of key areas are necessary to set out certain details of the new system. There are, for example, the regulations on domestic subjects. These regulations will define the properties, in addition to dwelling houses, that are to come out of rating with effect

from 1 April 1989. Examples of such properties are private garages which at the moment are valued and rated as separate subjects, and residential accommodation such as nurses' homes. The regulations will also provide the basis for exemption from the community charge for the residents of residential care homes, nursing homes and hostels. A draft of the regulations has been the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies. As a result, we are considering a number of changes to the draft, reflecting the fact that the consultation process has been genuine.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would rather get through all the points that I wish to answer. I shall give way to him, but that will mean failing to answer some of the other points.

Mr. Maxton: How long has that consultation period been? I saw those draft regulations in September.

Mr. Lang: The consultation period has allowed sufficient time for all the appropriate bodies to consult and to let us have their views on the draft regulations. As a result, we are considering a number of changes to the draft, reflecting the fact that the consultation process has been genuine.
Most of the changes that we were asked to make are of a fairly technical nature. However, one more substantive point in representations from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations Ltd. is that the communal parts of sheltered housing complexes should come out of rating along with the sheltered housing units themselves. We can see that to do so would be consistent with the general framework of the regulations and their objectives. I expect that the regulations will be made shortly, and I hope that they can be laid before Christmas.
A second group of regulations, which are well advanced in their preparation, are those relating to the timetable for setting the community charge and non-domestic rates. These are clearly essential to the process of system design by local authorities. The regulations have also been the subject of consultation with COSLA and other bodies representative of practitioners in the field. A number of useful comments have been received, and, again, the regulations will be made shortly.
A third and very important set of regulations will deal with registration for the community charge, to which Opposition Members have referred. The regulations will, for example, prescribe the information which is to appear on the canvass forms to be used by the community charges registration officer, the form of the register itself, and the form of the notice to be issued to persons who appear on the register. This is a complex area, and the drafts of the regulations have, again, been out to consultation.
Other matters on which we are actively engaged in preparing regulations are exemption from liability to the standard and collective community charges, the collection arrangements for community charges — particularly as regards the format of bills—and the definition of key terms used in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, such as the term "student".
We are therefore well advanced in the process of making the various regulations required. We have been consulting widely, and will continue to do so in the coming months. The consultation process has been entirely


genuine, in the sense that we have been willing to take on board the many constructive comments that we have received. We are well beyond the point of having only the basic framework of the new system. The details are fast taking shape, so that those involved — particularly in local authorities—can get on with the job of preparing for the introduction of the community charge on 1 April 1989.
Several hon. Members asked when the rebate regulations will appear. We envisage that consultations with local authorities will begin early next year on that matter. The system will be closely modelled on the new scheme of housing benefit, on which local authorities are already working. Therefore, there is no question of damaging delay or uncertainty.
I should perhaps say a few words about the prescription of the registration canvass form, which will be part of the registration regulations. As I have explained, they have already gone out to consultation, and there has been a wide response. We are considering the detailed points that have been made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised a point concerning the suggestion that the canvass form covers everyone, not just those aged over 18. That point was made by many respondents in the consultation process. It will be taken into account when the final version is drawn up. In considering the detailed points that were made, we paid particular attention to the comments that were made about the canvass form, because community charges registration officers will need to have that matter defined fairly soon so that they can get ahead with having supplies of the form printed. My officials are working closely with community charges registration officers to achieve that. They are, of course, taking account of the comments that were made about the need for the form to be as clear and straightforward as possible. I intend that when this phase of consultation is completed in the few days, we will have a final draft of the form which will be suitable for inclusion in the regulations when they are made, and I intend to make it available to registration officers to assist them in their preparations.
The third requirement is for local authorities to set up appropriate systems so that the community charge can come into operaton from 1 April 1989. We have given local authorities a valuable resource in the form of the study that the Department commissioned from CIPFA. It analysed the requirements for implementation, demonstrated that the system was workable, and how it could be designed to optimum effect. Copies of the report have for some time now been with local authorities to assist their forward planning.
In answer to the hon. Member, the CIPFA report did not say that the regulations had to be made in August. It said that we would respond by September, which we did, with consultation drafts. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 1·31 on page 2 of volume 1, the management summary of the report, to clarify that point.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised the matter of resources. Following the commencement of the Act, all regional and islands councils, without exception, have formally agreed to proceed with its implemention. To do this, they will need to incur some capital expenditure, mainly on computer equipment and accommodation. As the House will know, the Convention of Scottish Local

Authorities co-ordinated a bid, which was put to my right hon. and learned Friend at his meeting with it at the end of October, seeking additional allocations of £5·5 million in the current year. I am glad to say that my right hon. and learned Friend was able to announce at his meeting with the convention last Friday that he will allocate an sum of £6 million in the current year. The convention has also shown further capital expenditure requirements next year, amounting to a total figure over the two years approaching £20 million. There will be additional resources in the general services capital block for next year, which, together with this year's extra £6 million, will be more than sufficient to cover the requirement that has been demonstrated to us. Of course, it must not be forgotten that local authorities have, in total, substantial capital allocations and considerable flexibility within them to make adjustments at the margin. That means that if the estimates that we have been given should change, local authorities will have room to make the necessary adjustments in their overall programmes.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie raised the matter of accountability.

Mr Darling: rose—

Mr. Lang: I shall not give way.
I shall try to reply to some of the points that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie raised. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the reports in yesterday's newspapers that rate increases this year would have been much higher if they were expressed in terms of community charges seemed somehow to undermine the principle of accountability. Far from doing that, it shows the need for increased accountability. The community charge system will have a gearing effect, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, but it is precisely the discipline imposed by that gearing effect that will bring sense and discipline to local authorities and recognition of the need to respond to the interests of residents in their areas.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of the uniform business rate and suggested that the policy had somehow been dropped or had collapsed. I refer him to the Green Paper that came out before the legislation was brought forward. I shall quote a small section from paragraph 8—31. He will realise that the situation has not changed at all. It states:
The Government sees advantages in moving in time to a common non-domestic poundage in all areas and it may be desirable to harmonise valuation procedures to provide for a common standard. Where significant differences persist between Scottish and English valuation practice affecting certain types of property, further statutory changes may have to be considered to ensure fairness of valuations throughout the country. Until such moves took effect the Government would propose to retain industrial de-rating, and to control non-domestic rate poundage increases by linking these to some general index of price movements".
That policy is stated in the White Paper and has been implemented in the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 so there has been no change in that respect.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also raised the issue of collection and enforcement. There is no evidence that the collection and enforcement system envisaged for the community charge will create major difficulties.

National Health Service

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I cannot help feeling that to address the House at 3·25 in the morning on the question of health is a contradiction in terms. I owe an apology to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security as this is the second time in a comparatively short period that I have kept her out of bed to answer a debate that I have been lucky enough to start. I should extend my apology to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) who was also here on the last occasion that I performed this dreadful rite.
The debate is about the National Health Service. It is a fine achievement. It is treating more patients and delivering a better service than ever before. For example, stillbirths fell by 49.4 per cent. between 1974 and 1986. The NHS is spending more money and building more hospitals than ever before, but it is also undoubtedly under short-term stress.
My purpose is to debate the long-term future of the National Health Service, but I shall take a quick look in passing at some of the short-term pressures affecting my constituency. First, there is the way in which the district health authorities have to play into constantly moving goalposts. When Maidstone hospital was being built, new hospitals got commissioning money. Lo and behold, when Maidstone hospital was finished, the rules changed and we received none. Under the RAWP formula, Maidstone made its plans, but ACORN came along and hundreds of thousands of pounds were taken away.
Everywhere else in the country, students coming to a district for their placements bring with them SIFT money; but not, for some reason, when they come to Medway. As I see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in her place, I shall say nothing further about the discouragement of good practice, as I know that it is a subject close to her heart.
A second level of debate concerns how to organise the Health Service better, to enable it to deliver its services. At this level of debate, such questions are evoked as, should we persevere with national wage scales? Should not the whole giant structure be broken down into manageable portions? I see no reason to brag that the National Health Service is the largest employer in western Europe, because that means it is 15 years or more behind successful national and multinational firms in creating devolved cost centres. National salaries and wages do not work any more. In Maidstone, agency nurses cost the authority at least 20 per cent. more than elsewhere, and in 1986 the district health authority spent almost £500,000 on agency nurses, not to mention cooks and medical secretaries. District health authorities should be free to strike their own bargains with staff according to local conditions.
The second question is, do we need a regional tier? I accept the need to equalise resources; no one who represents Medway could fail to do so. But is the regional tier as it is organised at present the best mechanism for doing this?
I cite three examples from my own region. The first concerns the capital valuation of a district health authority's capital assets. One of my district health authorities was asked to carry out a valuation of its capital assets, which it did with enormous care and the best

professional advice available, only to find that the region proceeded almost at once to do exactly the same thing at great expense.
The second example concerns the creakiness of some of the machinery. In theory, regional control allows for easy movement of staff from declining areas of work to growing ones. Tell that to the district authorities that are finding it almost impossible to obtain additional staff from declining units in the region.
Thirdly, there is extraordinary slowness on the part of the regions to adjust to changing demography. Why do we continue to pay twice as much at St. Thomas's for patients who could be treated in Maidstone or Medway? Of course I accept the value of having centres of excellence, but the M25, the M20 and the M2 have all appeared since St. Thomas's was built and have radically altered the centre of gravity in the south-east of England, and the opportunities for specialist and teaching provision. It is no longer necessary to have 18 teaching hospitals within a horse-drawn carriage's distance of Harley street. What is more, the Government circular of May this year—DA (87)18 — which severely limits the redevelopment potential of green belt hospital sites, adds a huge premium to the redevelopment value of inner-city hospital sites.
My chief concern tonight, however, is to ask some of the philosophical questions that underlie all the management questions to which dismayingly little attention is paid by the public, unless or until some crisis raises a part of one of them. Let us start by being clear about two things. First, health care provision marches roughly in line with national wealth. It is therefore sentimental and muddle-headed hypocrisy to try to cut health off from other centres of the economy. The reason why the hospital building programme has surged ahead under the Conservatives, in contrast to the savage cuts that it sustained under Labour, is that the economy as a whole has been effectively improved.
Secondly, health care provision creates demand in excess of supply, and it always will. So there will always be rationing. Do the public understand that? Do we, as Members of Parliament, do enough to help them understand it? Rationing means that there will always be patients capable of life who will die for lack of treatment. That is not in question. What is in question is: which patients, and who should make the decision? At present, it seems to be made by consultants—at least, it is until the money runs out. Then it is made in the crudest possible way by the district health authorities, which seem to have no more effective financial control to hand than to close beds, wards and even hospitals. As a long, or even medium-term solution, that is unacceptable.
Perhaps we trust consultants to choose for us who shall live and who shall die. We may also want them to be free to choose whether the operations that they perform are cheap or costly. If so, we cannot for ever expect the district health authorities, which do not even employ them, to carry the can for their decisions. Still less can we expect district health authorities to endure being attacked on television by the consultants, whose actions are often so influential in determining the rate at which resources are expended. The principal argument for attaching a consultant's contract to the region is that that permits him or her to work in more than one district. Has the time come for alternative solutions to this problem to be tried? I believe that it has.
Rationing also means that not everyone can have a transplant or a hip replacement. It is irresponsible to argue, as so many Opposition Members frequently do, as if people could. Who is to miss out? Should everyone expect two replacement hips in a lifetime, or is there to be some cut-off age?
Health care can be patient-led and technology-led. Where it is technology-led, the best is often the enemy of the good. Just because the latest X-ray machine will be obsolescent in four years does not mean that it should automatically be replaced at three times the cost or that its use should be denigrated by staff and patients. Scanning procedures are expensive and it is often more cost-effective to use one on three patients than three on one patient. Such choices are often made on haphazard and capricious grounds, rather than as part of a rational use of rationed resources.
We also need to open up the humanitarian argument. In recent years we have blindly followed the line that because we can, we must. The time has come to examine the costs of that and to ask where it has led us. Because we can extend life, we do extend it. As a result, the number of people surviving into extreme old age increases rapidly. By 1996 we think that there will be 1·3 million more people over the age of 75 than there were in 1976, and double the number of the age of 85. This costs money. In 1983–84, the National Health Service spent on average £185 per head, but over-75s cost £875 per head in hospital and community services.
There are other costs besides money and it is time to begin the argument about quality of life. Some of our old people are slaves to a tyrannical technology that will not let them depart in peace. When my father died of emphysema, angina and allied ills, his spirit, as is so often the case, rallied on his final day and he greatly enjoyed happy, peaceful hours with his wife. Then he died. At that point the duty of the hospital forced him for hours into hideously undignified procedures in a vain attempt to resuscitate him in the certain knowledge that if they had succeeded he would never have been the same again.
Hon. Members should think of the cost in humane terms and in nursing and medical terms and ask whether we have balanced the debate. There is much else to be said about the long-term future of the National Health Service, and if we do not know what we want of it, we shall create only an uncertain future.
I should like to raise just two more matters, the first of which is funding. The National Health Service should normally be free at the point of receipt. Private insurance schemes will never provide a sufficient basis for health care, even of the rich. It has to exclude known conditions and must run heavy overheads in order to process its accounts. It could never carry the burden of catering for the nation's health, but, clearly it has a role to play.
It has been well said that if people wish to pay for additional amenities or for something to which they attach value, such as privacy in a single ward, we should aim at providing such facilities for everyone who wants them. Who am Ito argue with Aneurin Bevan? There is so much confusion about the word "private" in health care that we should probably cease using it. Firms should be encouraged to expand the health education, screening and other facilities that many firms offer to their staffs. We should also address the ways in which we needlessly damage ourselves.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I agree that there should be more workplace-based screening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is regrettable that a proposal to have cervical cancer screening for the many female employees of the House and nearby offices was turned down by the Services Committee? Does he further agree that this would be a good time to reopen the question whether there should be on-site cervical screening for people who work the odd hours that being employed here entails?

Mr. Rowe: There is great merit in providing screening facilities. There are difficulties in doing that here because many of those who work in the House are not employees of the House but of individual Members. But I agree that the facilities should be available and that, possibly, lion. Members should contribute to the cost of enabling their staff to take advantage of those facilities. For those employed by the House, they should be available.
I was saying that we should address the ways in which we needlessly damage ourselves. Every poll puts health at the top of people's preferences, but when people vote for health they deceive themselves; they would rather spend their increasing disposable incomes on drinking, smoking, over-eating and dangerous pastimes, including driving much too fast.
In 1986, there were 4,895 fatal accidents on our roads, 58,187 serious accidents and 184,762 slight accidents. The cost of those was estimated to have been £2·8 billion. In addition, there were 1,478,000 damage-only accidents, which cost a further £964 million.
Adjustments must be made in the balance between expecting taxpayers, be they never so temperate, to pay for the excesses of those of us who choose consistently to damage ourselves and others. Random breath testing may prove as helpful to the NHS finances as an increase in Government funding. I see no reason why those who belong to clubs which indulge in sports with above-average accident levels should not pay a modest health insurance along with their club subscription. There is plenty to be done in health promotion and prevention of disease, as the Minister passionately believes and preaches.
Huge changes are occurring in the Health Service. Men and women are entering it with one vision of what the life is about, only to find that new techniques have changed it utterly. That is stressful, and people react to that stress either by leaving the job or by seeking to hang on to their older version of it.
Much of the hierarchy in the Health Service is obsolete, and many of the job definitions with it. Many professionals have been effectively deskilled by their machines, while new professions have achieved a level of proficiency which allows them to diagnose, treat and evaluate treatment to an extent which leaves them independent of the medical profession. Yet neither in salary nor status does the service recognise the new position. These anomalies need to be addressed.
There is a further peril overhanging the future, and that is the growing trend to take cases of malpractice or mistake to the courts, where enormous damages are exacted. If we go too far down that route, we shall undoubtedly find that doctors and other professions will become increasingly unwilling to act without having the most expensive machinery, two or three alternative opinions and everything else available to them. That is a difficult area, because nobody wants to see patients left with no recourse.
The National Health Service is very much alive. It has its problems and it always will have problems. It could do with some more resources in the short-term, but in the long-term its future depends on all of us becoming involved in the debate. I hope that I have outlined some of the points of that debate tonight.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Any mild displeasure that I might have felt about the hour of night at which the debate was to be conducted has been entirely dispelled by listening to the very eloquent and forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am particularly grateful to him for securing the debate tonight and giving me an opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the problems of my constituents and the National Health Service crisis in Maidstone. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Maidstone and for drawing attention to some of its problems. Although Maidstone general hospital is in my constituency, it serves many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley).
As I examine the problems of the NHS tonight, I want to consider one particular aspect—what I would call the "efficiency paradox". The Government's policy has always been that resources should be directed towards patient care; that the emphasis should be at the sharp end of the Health Service; we should minimise expenditure on "hotel" services, such as catering and laundry, by achieving the most effective value for money for those services; that we should try to increase activity to as high a level as is compatible with facilities; that we should aim at fast throughputs of patients and for the lowest possible cost per patient compatible with providing an adequate, proper and satisfactory service. However, because of the way in which the Health Service is funded, and the interaction of the various tiers within the Health Service, the fact remains that the efficient are penalised and the inefficient have no particular incentive to mend their ways or to improve their performance.
Regional health authorities allocate money given to them by the Government. I must state at the outset that I have no quarrel with the amount of money that the Government are putting into the NHS or that they have been making available to my regional health authority—the South-East Thames regional health authority. However, what happens beyond that does matter, and that it what has had such a catastrophic effect on my constituents.
The regions allocate money on the basis of expected levels of activity. They try to match the amount of money required with the activity expected from individual district health authorities. That is like looking into a crystal ball once a year and allocating money to the images that form there. Instead, the allocation should be achieved through the day-to-day calculations of the slide-rule.
I have examined the DHSS performance indicators throughout the South-East Thames regional health authority for the past two years for which figures are available. There are very few instances where expected and actual activity converge on the graph. On the whole, there

are large fluctuations, with some hospitals underperforming against their expected levels of activity and others, such as Maidstone general, which well and truly over-perform and return a very high level of patient care against what is expected.
Those DHSS performance indicators clearly show that Maidstone general hospital is the most efficient hospital not only in the South-East Thames region but in the country. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that, and take the opportunity to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and I are grateful to the Minister for having taken on board our recent urgent representations that, because of the difference between actual and projected activity, Maidstone is no longer able to provide the services that are expected.
When regional decisions adversely affect the resources of district health authorities — my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent outlined several adverse decisions —an inefficient authority can react, because it can make cost improvements on hotel services, cut waste or take initiatives to improve efficiency and thus save money. An efficient authority, such as Maidstone district health authority, is not able to react because it has already made all the savings it can reasonably have been expected to make and did so well in advance of any Government guidelines on the subject. It has always put emphasis on patient care and has pared down and cut out anything beyond that.
The efficient authorities are effectively penalised for being efficent and the inefficient have no incentive to mend their ways, because, if their activity is less than expected and for which they have been allocated money, there is no incentive to make savings and try to close the gap, which is what faces efficient authorities. I urge the Minister to draw up firm guidelines, if not regulations, so that the two most important factors for deciding the annual allocation of money to regional health authorities should be efficiency and activity.
I do not altogether blame the South-East Thames regional health authority for wrong forecasts, particularly as it has had to make them on thoroughly out-of-date statistics. I strongly urge the Minister to revise the statistics on which allocations are made, so that data can be brought up to date and authorities do not have to use data that pertained four years ago, which in my region has redounded greatly to the disadvantage of my constituents.
Further nonsenses develop from penalising efficient authorities for their efficiency. Maidstone has a brand new general hospital, which is a very tangible demonstration of the Government's commitment to the National Health Service. It was built in 1983, having been needed for several decades before that. It is a grand, modern, well-equipped hospital, a large capital asset, but some of the main wards cannot be opened, or, to put it the other way, some main wards are now being closed. Trying to make savings by closing wards in modern hospitals is rather like trying to make savings on the railways by digging up the railway lines. Such a practice is not efficient or a proper use of capital. Therefore, we have penalised efficiency and that has led to even greater inefficiency.
If money were always used to the greatest possible advantage, more could be squeezed at regional and district level. I deplore the fact that South-East Thames regional health authority is currently spending £600,000 in rent on


empty, administrative headquarters that it left two years ago. If that regional authority would kindly hand over a similar sum to Maidstone for direct patient care we could reopen the closed wards. I ask the Minister to consider drawing to the attention of that regional health authority the vast, rambling empty premises on which it is spending precious resources and the greatly under-used wards that could relieve the suffering and sickness of my constituents.
Perhaps it is all to do with the fact that the regional health authority chose to place itself out at Bexhill-on-Sea. Perhaps, because it is such a difficult place to reach and involves so much travelling time and administrative expense, that authority is not as familiar as it should be with the actual minutiae and the day-to-day effects of some of its terrible decisions.
Nevertheless, even if it is true that South-East Thames regional authority has not been as effective as it might have been in the distribution of resources, and even though it is possible to say that that regional authority has wasted fairly large sums, the fact remains that if one spends the housekeeping on the horses one still faces the problem of feeding the family. It is unfair to blame the person who supplies the housekeeping in the first place, and, therefore, it is totally unfair for us to blame the problems of the authority on the Government who supplied the money. However, we are still left with the problem of feeding the family or, in this case, caring for the sick.
I ask the Minister to intervene in what is happening in Maidstone and throughout the regional authority. Although no blame can be attached to the Government for the present situation, surely blame must accrue if no remedy is speedily found. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should he handed a crock of gold, but my constituents need an urgent, desperate remedy from the Government for the ills that they are suffering. In the great, modern brand-new showpiece hospital in Maidstone we are dealing with nothing except malignancies and emergencies. No routine surgery of any sort is carried out in that hospital.
I know that the Minister is already considering various possibilities of help, but while that is taking place the queues are getting longer and our patients remain untreated. I urge sensible haste. In the immediate future not the long-term future about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent spoke—I hope that there will be a greater accent on efficiency in regional allocations.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: It is a particular pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). In a previous incarnation, I was a teacher in my hon. Friend's constituency and I well remember occasions when I took pupils who had injured themselves down to the local hospitals. It was interesting to listen to my hon. Friend's graphic description of the Maidstone health authority's problems and the way in which those problems have been tackled. I was also pleased to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) because before I taught at Chatham I taught at Aylesford, which is just outside her constituency, and I well remember the occasions when I had to take pupils to West Kent general hospital, which pre-dated the modern hospital that she has described.
This debate is an opportunity to discuss in a rational, less polemic manner than in recent weeks the problems

that face the Health Service. One of the most frustrating aspects of the National Health Service has been that, although the present Government have devoted far more to it than any previous Government in terms of resources and manpower, there continue to be undoubted problems in health care provision. As a Conservative Member, I care as strongly about our health services as any member of the Opposition. I should like tonight to examine some of the problems, and the ways in which we might tackle them, in a dispassionate and positive way.
Let me begin by paying tribute to the work of my health authority, the Pembrokeshire health authority, which was established in 1982. Under the leadership of its chairman —Captain Bill Phillips, ably supported by the general manager, Brian Davies, and his team of administrators, nurses, doctors and other staff— the authority has led the way in Wales in obtaining maximum value for the money that it has spent. The Withybush hospital, opened some 10 years ago, continues to expand — with new wards, an additional operating theatre, and a purpose-built psychiatric day care facility — and the South Pembrokeshire hospital in Pembroke Dock has been modernised. These are just some examples of the progress made by the health authority.
Considerable savings have been achieved through putting services out to tender, and Pembrokeshire leads the way among Welsh district health authorities. All this has been achieved in spite of a 4 per cent., or £800,000, under-funding in 1986–87, on the Welsh Office's own formula. I shall be looking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for continuing moves towards ensuring that Pembrokeshire receives equal funding on that formula with other health authorities throughout Wales.
It is not only the health authority that has been working strongly for health provision in Pembrokeshire. The people of Pembrokeshire are fiercely independent, and maintain a strong tradition of support for what was the county hospital and is now the district health authority's main hospital. Indeed, the establishment of the Pembrokeshire health authority in 1982 was as a result of that independence — the wish for a separate identity, rather than being merely a part of the wider county of Dyfed.
The strong support shown by the people of 4Pembrokeshire for their local health service has meant that the gamma camera appeal has now raised £100,000 towards the £120,000 cost of the camera. That is the equivalent of £1 for every man, woman and child in Pembrokeshire, and is an excellent example of what voluntary contributions and help do for our Health Service.
However, I do not wish to speak only about the achievements of Pembrokeshire. I should like also to mention a major problem, on which I hope that the Government will show some flexibility in the near future. That is recruitment. Because of the location of Pembrokeshire in the west of Wales, some distance from Cardiff and the major centres of population, there are difficulties in recruiting nurses and doctors to work in the health authority. There is no establishment problem; the authority cannot recruit staff up to the establishment that it is allowed. That means that, in the current year, the health authority has already had to spend nearly £200,000 on agency staff salaries. I hope that the Government will make rapid moves to get rid of the national pay


negotiating system and introduce pay negotiations on a district level, so that it is possible to take account of the vast variations in the supply of staff for different health authorities.
Let me now leave the problems and achievements of Pembrokeshire health authority and make some positive suggestions on how we can help to improve the Health Service. We must, start with the basic principle that health provision must be available nationally to all, regardless of income and at all times. That is not questioned by Conservative Members any more than it is by Labour Members. However, it should not blind us to basic questions about the Health Service and how it is operated. It is important that we ask a number of questions for the Minister to examine with her civil servants—although naturally I do not expect a detailed answer tonight—and see whether solutions are possible.
We should start with aims and objectives. I believe that the first aim of the Health Service must be the prevention of ill health, the second the maintenance of good health, the third the cure of illness, and the fourth the relief of pain. If we can put the emphasis, as we have done in our recent White Paper, on the prevention of ill health, that will be the key to improving health. It is far better to have prevention rather than having to seek cures when we have failed to prevent the illnesses in the first place.
It is rather ironic that every time we talk about the Health Service and issue the statistics—we are all guilty of it — we talk about the number of in-patients, the number of out-patients, the number of operations, the amount of treatment that is given. If the Health Service were to be properly judged, we ought to be talking about fewer in-patients, fewer out-patients, fewer operations, because we had prevented the illnesses in the first place. It can be argued that the more illness and the more in and out-patients, the greater the sign that the Health Service is perhaps not doing its proper job. I particularly welcome, therefore, the recent White Paper on primary health care, with its accent on prevention. Primary health care also, generally speaking, is a far more efficient and cost-effective system than hospital-based treatment.
I want, however, to direct most of my remarks to the 'hospital side of the National Health Service, because this is where the majority of the expenditure is to be found and the biggest percentage of staff employed. I should like to start by looking at the management structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone talked about the regional health authority; I think that the time has now come for us to ask whether we need this tier of management. In Wales we are happy to do without it. District health athorities are responsible directly to the Secretary of State. There is great merit in the argument that we could perhaps get rid of regional health authorities and go for a system which allocated the money to the districts rather than to the regions.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves whether we have gone too far in diversifying individual services to individual hospitals and whether we ought now to go back to having a number of major centres of excellence round the country, which will perhaps take back some of the burden put on the district hospitals.
Thirdly, we must look at the outcome measurements and the statistics in the Health Service. I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions on child intensive care

units and their costs, and the cost of abortions, in each district health authority. In neither case was the information available. We need to ask the Department of Health and Social Security to request regional and district health authorities to break down the figures on relative costs of treatments within each hospital and each service. It is essential that we have performance indicators to measure the success and failure of competing demands and treatments. The time has now come when we must start asking the difficult questions on finance.
For many years, services such as education, social services, police and health repelled any question about financial accountability through measures like cost-benefit analysis by the argument that they were qualitative services and not susceptible to measurement by crude quantitative yardsticks. The Griffiths inquiry into the management of the National Health Service in 1983, for example, reported:
We have been told that the National Health Service is different from business in management terms, not least because the NHS is not concerned with the profit motive and must be judged by wider social standards which cannot be measured.
The report found that these differences could be greatly overstated. Academics like Alan Maynard in 1983 and A. L. Cochrane in 1972 looked at the lack of evaluation of health care systems and concluded:
the majority of medical therapies in use today have not been evaluated in a scientific manner … the link between health care inputs and outputs unclear".
We must also provide more information about the behaviour of health care systems:
It will be a poor investment in scarce resources unless managers can be induced to use this information and change the behaviour of decision makers for the better".
Again, the Griffiths inquiry, reporting in 1983, said that the National Health Service management of the time lacked
any real, continuous evaluation of its performance criteria".
and that the National Health Service is about
delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own 'sake'. The accountability review process … should start with a unit performance review based on management budgets which involve clinicians at hospital level.
After noting that many hospitals
do not yet have budgets",
the report recommended that
each unit of management has a total budget and that procedures should be established for the development of the budget and monitoring performance against them, rules for virement between unit budgets and individual budgets within the unit, authorisation limits and the flexible use of total resources; and the financial relationship between unit budgets and any district-wide budgets for functional services on which the unit may call.
There are signs that people in the Health Service are considering the cost of provision. In another article, in 1986, Alan Maynard argued that over the past few decades the way of financing the service had changed only marginally. In a fascinating article entitled "Balancing the budget and maintaining standards of care", he suggested that the Health Service should consider "Quality adjusted life years", or QALYs. That is something that the Department should consider carefully. It involves health care inputs, such as expenditure on hospital beds, drugs, doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, the health care activities or processes involved in the measurement of


throughput, such as the number of GP consultations, the number of out-patient visits, the number of in-patient stays and the length of stay.
Those matters in turn affect health status outcomes, which are the measures of impact, both positive and negative, of inputs and activities on the patient's health status, or the amount of life that he will continue to have as a result of the treatment. We must consider those matters if we are to measure the effectiveness of the treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent talked about consultants, which is a sector that we must tackle and challenge. At the moment, rational decision-making is often being thrown out of the window by one or two consultants who spend their time waving shrouds and arguing not on the basis of rational decisions but on the basis of what they consider politically expedient at the time.
I regret that in debates on the Health Service we are often subject to emotional outcries — rightly in many cases—but we do not dispassionately ask how we spend money and why we got into the position in the first place. Sometimes, consultants have a lot to answer for in the way that they make decisions on hospital expenditure.
Many of my friends are nurses, and what comes through from their experiences is that the present shift system in the Health Service is in need of radical overhaul. On the afternoon shift, there is often an overlap of three or four hours between different shifts, but that is the only time of the day that it occurs. It often means that nurses are standing around with little to do, instead of being properly utilised.
We must consider the work that nurses are asked to undertake. All too often we ask people who are highly trained, and who have joined the Health Service well motivated and ready to help with patient care, to be no more than ward orderlies. We must examine the role of ancillary staff and ensure that the trained staff are used properly for nursing.
I am most concerned about the proposals in Project 2000. The idea that we should turn nursing from a practical on-the-job profession into some sort of quasi-academic skill, where nurses rarely see a patient and spend most of their time in colleges of further education being taught in a classroom, is not the best way of utilising skilled and motivated young people.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that several years ago when I was working in Scotland for the Department of Health a study was done that showed that people went into nursing or medicine as a career because they longed to help patients. At that time, the medical profession's training meant that they did not see a patient for two years, which was changed.

Mr. Bennett: That is an extremely valuable point, and it backs up what I am saying. We must ensure that those who have a vocation and desire to help patients do not have that desire stifled by being thrust into a classroom away from the people whom they want to help.
It is unrealistic to believe that we can have an all-graduate nursing profession. Insufficient people are interested in working in nursing to supply the necessary number of graduates. I do not think that it is necessary to have people educated to degree level to work in nursing. The evidence we have about the present nursing force

shows that we get very good nurses who come in with five 0-levels or a couple of A-levels. That seems to be about the sort of academic standard that we should be demanding. The idea that we should go all the way up to degree level will put off a large number of able young men and women who want to come into nursing now.
We have to look at the appointments system in hospitals. I was interested to read in the debate on the Health Service a few weeks ago that one of my hon. Friends referred to the fact that many hospitals call up 40 people at the same time for an appointment. I understand why they do that—because many people do not turn up at the time for which they have been called and the hospital wants to ensure that there are sufficient patients to be seen by the doctors at a certain time. However, there is another side to the argument. When 40 people are called at the same time, people know that there is no point in coming at 9.30 am; if they are not seen until 2.30 pm, there is a natural reluctance to turn up. I believe that hospitals have to look again at the appointments system to see whether they can work out a far more rational way of calling people for such appointments.
Friends of mine who work in the hospital service and in accident and emergency wards and casualty departments tell me that another area to be looked at is the number of people who come into casualty departments who should not be there. I am told that up to 75 per cent. of people who come to accident and emergency units at local hospitals should have gone to their general practitioner. They come to the hospital at all times of the day and night because they do not want to wait in a doctor's surgery. That is a dreadful misuse of the trained, skilled staff in the accident and emergency units. I welcome the experiments that I understand are being carried out at Oldchurch hospital in Romford to ensure that the accident and emergency department is used by those for whom it is intended.
I suspect that some doctors shuffle off their more irritating patients to the local hospital or send them along for an X-ray or whatever in order to get them off their hands. Doctors should be aware of how much an individual patient costs every time they are sent to the hospital for some form of treatment. Therefore, I also welcome the proposals in the White Paper on primary health care, which will enable doctors to do much of what is currently done by hospitals.
I believe that the main aim of the Health Service must be to be responsive to patients. At the moment, there is little connection between the needs of patients, the cost of the service and the provision offered. We need a reexamination of the financing of the Health Service to ensure that we get far more competition into it and that private money is used more widely. We need to look at the way in which we fund the Health Service, at the insurance system and the role of private health insurance and private health care schemes. If we do that, we will perhaps get better value for money from the £21 billion we are spending. Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members are frustrated by the fact that that money does not seem to be spent as wisely as it could be.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for once again bringing before the House an important topic for discussion. It is important that he should have raised the


issue of "because we can we must" and whether we should continue with treatment simply because we have the medical knowledge and technology to do so. It is right to consider what have now been called quality adjusted life years. However, one of the problems of discussing that issue in the current climate is the fear that it is being raised not through concern about the patient and relatives but about the Exchequer and public spending. It is difficult to disentangle the two.
The starting point when discussing whether treatment should be engaged in or intervention in relation to someone who may be dying should be proceeded with must be the well-being of the patient and considerations for the family rather than whether it will cost too much. There is a great deal of suspicion that the sinister ulterior motive behind these issues being brought forward now is the desire to save money.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) talked about people unjustifiably clogging up casualty departments. In London and many other large cities people go to casualty departments because of a breakdown in the primary health care system, particularly at night. People cannot get their GP to come out to see them. They know from experience that, under the deputising service, it will take hours for the doctor to arrive, that, as they are paid according to the number of visits they make, they will stay only a few minutes and be exhausted from overwork. Such people are therefore worried about the quality of service when the doctor does finally turn up — and they are voting with their feet. They end up getting a cab, or borrowing a friend's car or taking their own, to the casualty department.
We should not blame the victim and complain that people have not been prepared to sit in a GP's surgery. If GPs provided a good service, day and night, people would go to them first. When people go to casualty departments, they inevitably face a long wait to see a doctor who they do not know and who is not familiar with their case, but the alternative is worse.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Lady says, but a friend, who is a nurse in an accident and emergency department in a major London teaching hospital, told me that people are going during the day with headaches and cut fingers — things that it would not occur to most people to go the doctor with. I admit that those are extreme cases, but we must deter people from turning up at accident departments for trivial reasons.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman is doing a blame-the-victim number. He must understand that people sometimes turn up during the day because they have telephoned their doctor for an appointment and been told that they cannot go for two weeks because the doctor is so busy. Of course doctors and nurses are frustrated, when there are real accident emergencies to deal with, by receiving people who should be dealt with by the primary health care system.
It is important, however, that we do not blame the victim of the primary health care system. Rather, we must ensure that people are able to go to their family doctor and receive a good service day and night. The hon. Member for

Pembroke said that he is concerned that we are not getting good value for money and that we are spending too much money—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I did not say that.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman said that we are not getting good value for money. We must remind ourselves that the British Health Service is run on a shoestring compared with other European countries and the United States. Yet, despite the comparatively low level of funding, the quality of service is still high. Therefore, rather than asking whether the Health Service is inefficient, we should be recognising that, despite all the constraints on it, it is still efficient.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should be considering more insurance-based schemes and private funding. We have only to look to America, where such schemes are operating, to see the price that is paid if that is the path that is trodden. The United States spends roughly twice as much of its national wealth on its health service as we do on ours, but it does not get such a good system. Moreover, because the United States has a multiplicity of insurance-based schemes, it spends a great deal on the administrative costs of constantly sending out bills to insurance companies or assessments and bills to individuals. The system becomes overloaded, and that is a disadvantage that we do not have.
In a system that is a mixture of private funding, insurance-based funding and the public sector, it is difficult to plan for developments in health care, whether in the primary or hospital sectors. It is clear that the individual patient gets a much better deal from a system if it is planned in advance and developed sensibly. In the United States it is impossible to plan sensibly and to have a strategic approach to health care because it is such a jumble of a number of different systems. Therefore, not only is it very expensive, but it does not give the individual patient a good deal at the end of the day. It would be wrong to assume that the poor get a bad deal in the United States, but that it is all right for the rich.
When a health care system involves a large element of profit, whether it be insurance-based schemes or straight payment over the counter, those techniques or treatments that are most profitable tend to be developed most strongly. All sorts of medical interventions and treatments are developed for the patient, not necessary—ily in response to the patient's condition but because the system has developed the the habit of overtreating so that more bills can be sent to the insurance company and thus more money is made. That is a real distortion in the development of medical care in the United States because of the involvement of commercial medicine and insurance-based schemes to which Britain has not, as yet, fallen victim, for which I am thankful.
My sister had two children in an NHS hospital in London and had twins in the United States. She was astonished at the level of intervention after the children were born. Every test was performed on them every half hour from head to toe, logged up and charged to the insurance company. I am well aware that some of those tests are engaged in because everybody is trying to cover his back so that he will not be sued if anything goes wrong. The legal system has a part to play in this, but that is not the whole story. The more treatment a patient receives, the more the service is paid, so a great deal is done.
It is ironic that there seems to be a growing recognition that the Health Service is under-funded, simply to provide a platform from which people can launch themselves with suggestions for alternative funding. I would argue that the recognition that the Health Service is under-funded should lead to pressure for more funds to be put into the Health Service and not necessarily to demands to change the system by which the Health Service is funded. Wherever the funds come from, they will be part of the national wealth that is being put into the Health Service. We might as well build on a system that uses resources efficiently —that is, their use by the public sector—rather than put those resources into the private sector which would still take resources from the national wealth but result in a much more expensive health care system that could not provide such a good deal.
I turn now to waiting lists. The hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned "shroud waving". It is unfortunate that if consultants, who after all are trained to treat patients, save lives and ease suffering—that is why they went into the Health Service and chose that type of work — speak out because they are concerned about the deterioration in patient care and their inability to do their job properly because of spending restrictions, they should be accused of shroud waving. It is absolutely unacceptable to challenge their good faith in that respect.
I spoke the other day to a heart surgeon from Guy's hospital who told me of the heartbreak and frustration that he feels because he has been told that he must reduce the number of patients on whom he operates although the theatre is available, as are the nurses. Indeed, the whole system is geared to provide coronary bypass operations, for which there is a large waiting list. Despite those facts, that surgeon has been told to reduce the number of operations that he performs in order to save money.
He told me that, when explaining to a patient why he or she needs an operation, he may have to say that if they do not have the operation they could die. Obviously, the risks must be explained. When a patient is told that he can have an operation that will save his life, the consultant is immediately asked, "When can I have the operation, doctor?" The consultant replies, "Six months, if you are lucky." So, having explained to the patient that he or she needs that operation and that he advises it because the patient might die without it, he must then explain that the operation cannot take place for at least six months. Of course, the patient knows that during that time there is a chance that he or she could die or become more ill and less able to recover when the operation does take place.
The consultant said that the next question is often, "If I go private, when could I have the operation?" The consultant is able to reply, "If you go private, you can have the operation next week." We are getting into an invidious situation if people then feel that they must borrow money from the bank, take out a loan or borrow from their relatives because for about £4,000 that possible death sentence of a six-month wait can be lifted.
When consultants bring such issues into the public arena, it is a travesty to be told that they are shroud waving. Those consultants are raising an important matter for debate. Indeed, it is their public duty, and I welcome the fact that they do so. To accuse them of shroud waving is to try to stifle the debate because the Government are trying to avoid criticism.

Mr. Rowe: Some consultants do shroud wave. There is no question about it. Some consultants play on the emotions of the public over cases which, it is true, are very sad. However, that is often done by consultants who, for one reason or another, have chosen to play very little part in the administration or responsibilities of the unit in which they operate. Although there are plenty of good consultants who raise perfectly responsible points, there are far too many of the other kind as well.

Ms. Harman: Incidentally, the surgeon from Guy's hospital, to whom I spoke the other day, has actually taken on the management of his unit as well as doing all his surgical work. However, he is still told by the district authority that he must cut down the number of operations that he has to carry out.
Conservative Members talk with disdain about emotional cases, as though they are somehow unpleasant. Of course, the fact that last year 24 premature babies died after being denied intensive care cots is emotional. There is something wrong with people who do not think that that issue is emotional and deserves an answer. It is certainly an emotional issue for parents who see the chance of life for a premature baby being denied because of a lack of intensive care cots. We must recognise their feelings and respond to and be concerned about them, rather than condemn them as emotional and, therefore, not something that should be part of the debate, or regard consultants as shroud waving. It is worrying that waiting lists remain high.
I saw the junior Minister's comments about going private reported in the newspapers yesterday. We can clearly see that private insurance companies are issuing leaflets stating, "Can you afford to wait so long on the waiting list? By the time you get your treatment, you might just be inoperable or will have lost your job. You had better go private." At the same time, the Government are failing to attack the long wait for treatment that many people have. We also see the junior Minister urging the well-off—those on over £18,000 a year—to go private. That is shameful. The point about a taxed-based system is that the more one earns, the more one pays. One is entitled to use that system, whether one pays nothing—because one does not pay any tax because one is not earning—or whether one pays a great deal. We should not develop the arguments that somehow people who are not paying taxes are scroungers and should not be entitled to use the system, or that people who have paid an awful lot should not be entitled to use the system because they are too well off. We should recognise the benefits of a comprehensive national health care system and build on that base. The Health Service is a tremendous asset. We should build on it rather than try to chop it off piecemeal and allow it to disintegrate.
Talking about things disappearing piecemeal, I wish to get some answers from the Minister on family planning. District health authorities, faced as they are with real difficulty in balancing their budgets, are looking around for services that they can cut and from which people will not die as a result. Clearly, many general managers have lit upon family planning. They think to themselves, "Well, we can cut the odd session here and the odd clinic there and nobody will die as a result." Or they may think, "Well, people can go to their GPs and get family planning advice." What is the Minister's view about the dire threat that hangs over the district authority provision of family


planning facilities? We should try to improve contraceptive advice and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. We should not allow family planning to go into retreat. It is not an answer for people to see their general practitioners for advice. It would reduce women's choice. Women might choose not to go to their GPs for contraceptive advice. They might particularly want to have a woman doctor giving them contraceptive advice but have a male GP, or their husbands might have had vasectomies and they may feel embarrassed about asking their GPs for contraceptive advice. There might be a whole load of reasons.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): In that case, they would not need contraceptive advice.

Ms. Harman: Indeed, they might need contraceptive advice, even if their husbands have had vasectomies. That is precisely why they might not want to go to their GP.
The other reason why it is not a good idea in current circumstances for people to be forced to go to their GP for contraceptive advice without the opportunity to go to a clinic is that most GPs are not trained to provide contraceptive advice. I am sure that nobody here would relish the idea of being fitted with an intra-uterine device or a cap by a doctor who was not trained to do so. Many GPs who are not trained to fit IUDs or caps do not relish the idea either, so when people ask for contraceptive advice they are dished out with the pill. That distorts the sort of contraceptive prescription they are given. They might be given what the GP is able to provide rather than what might be best for them in their circumstances.
I should like to have a very firm reassurance from the Minister tonight that she regards family planning services as a central part of mainstream National Health Service provision and that it will not be abdicated to the charitable sector. That sector has done much to move the Health Service sensibly into this sphere, but it does not wish to take a step backwards and be left carrying the can. Will she assure us that we will not be left with untrained GPs and no choice in the provision of contraception? I hope that she will show the House tonight her recognition of the dire situation facing family planning services in district health authorities and tell us what she is going to do to ensure that they do not carry on down that path.
I know that the Government issued a circular recently to district health authorities about terminal care. I very much welcome the recognition that the Health Service must be caring and that the Government value the work it can do for patients who will not recover as well as for those who will. We have a long way to go in this respect, and a path has been well charted for us in the Health Service by voluntary and charitable organisations which have been working in this sphere for a long time. They, like me, want to see the Health Service assimilate and take up the experience and expertise gained within the voluntary and charitable sectors. However it does not make sense for the Minister to issue circulars to district health authorities saying that there should be more concern for the terminally ill when DHAs are hardly able to maintain their level of services for those with some chance of recovery.
The Minister ought to be honest enough to recognise that the hopes kindled when she talked about the importance of terminal care have been dashed in practice.

As someone said, it is like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic; if the ship is not safe as a whole, it is difficult to develop services and add to them.
I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to recognise the situation that nurses are in at present. Far from being able to go on training courses to learn how to deal with terminally ill patients and find the time to look after them when they come back to work, that is just not happening.
I should like to finish by saying something about agency nurses. They are not just more expensive than directly-employed nurses, although it is an important feature that a health authority pays much more for agency nurses than for its own employees; there will not be such good quality of care.
Agency nurses are less likely to know where things are and whom to contact, because they are not part of a team. So they do not work as well as part of a team and they cannot nurse as well as people who are part of a mainstream team. Ideally, a ward will have nurses who know where everything is, know whom to call when they need someone, and know the people with whom they are working. They should have a continuous relationship with patients who have been in the ward for some time and they should know their way around. That does not happen with agency nurses.
Another point about agency nurses that has not been sufficiently highlighted is that when they have done a full week's work in the National Health Service and are working at the weekend, they are likely to be exhausted and unable to provide a good quality of care.
I hope that the Minister will say something tonight about the recruitment freeze, which is already affecting nurses. District health authorities are imposing such a freeze on nurses in a vain attempt to meet their budgets, and the freeze is threatened to continue next year. It should be recognised, too, that we cannot enhance the grading structure and improve pay at the top of the scale by taking from poorly paid nurses at the bottom of it. I hope that the Minister will take time to answer some of the points that I have raised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): In the few minutes that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has left me — she made a 27-minute speech — I shall endeavour to do just what she has asked.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on once again having got me up in the middle of the night to talk about an important subject. I hope that he will win the ballot next time, too, but be kind enough to choose a subject such as the arts in Manchester. I shall work through the questions in my hon. Friend's important and valuable speech.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could have local bargaining for pay. If that was agreed, pay rates would rise in the home counties. If my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is right, they would rise in rural Wales, too. Unless funding followed, the problems of balancing income and expenditure would make things worse, so we should be wary, because that is perhaps a slightly simplistic approach. We rely heavily on recruiting young women—and, increasingly, young men—into the Health Service. One problem is that the number of school


leavers is dropping sharply. We shall have difficulty in recruiting staff whatever the pay rates, now or in the future.
My hon. Friend asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, whether we needed regions. I tend to feel that restructuring is the last resort of those who have no idea of what to do next. I am reluctant to have another reorganisation of the Health Service, having gone through more than one in my time in it. The last reorganisation had a strong element of everyone swapping around on musical chairs, getting paid £3,000 a year for doing the same job. Meanwhile, the old lady with the hip operation or the old gentleman with the heart attack were still waiting outside the door for treatment. So I am not sure that reorganisation solves problems—sometimes it creates them.
My hon. Friend asked about the slowness in moving patients and money out of London. I do not know whether he has had a chance to read the Official Report of the Adjournment debate that took place on 27 November about St. Thomas's, in which we aired some of these difficulties. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who raised that issue—his constituency is in London—felt strongly that the money should stay in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) suggested in an equally interesting and well thought out speech that we put the burden back on the major centres and stopped taking the money out of them. So my two highly intellectual hon. Friends have demonstrated the problem of choosing which solution is right.
It has been said several times tonight that primary care reform should help, partly by scrutiny of the referral rate of GPs, and partly by GPs doing more themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke was right to talk about the pressures on casualty departments. He forgot to say that about one third of the patients who roll into casualty departments are drunk, and many of the problems are caused by alcohol. Therefore, whatever we do about GPs or hospitals, we have a distinct problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent asked about who should hold consultant contracts and whether it was appropriate for them to be held by the regional health authority. I used to be the chairman of a teaching district and I held the consultant contracts. I can assure my hon. Friend that we had exactly the same problems. It is a question not of who holds the contract, but of who can enforce the contract and who can persuade, preferably, the consultants concerned that we all have an obligation to keep within our budget. Indeed, we all have an obligation to have budgets and it is an important part of health care to know what it is costing every time one does an intervention of some kind.
My hon. Friend asked about the cost of technology. I intervened to suggest that one might have more than two hip operations in one's lifetime. I was quite serious about that. The early operations lasted about a decade. If I get my first hip replacement in my fifties and, God willing, I live to be in my nineties, I might expect to have several renewals; I know of constituents who have had several. That puts the matter in context.
Most admissions to acute hospitals—about 60 per cent. — are elderly people. We are pleased about that and they are substantial recipients and the demanders of health care. Life expectancy is rising at about two years per decade.
My hon. Friend asked about caring for the terminally ill. The hon. Member for Peckham spoke about the circular that I issued earlier this year. I agree with my hon. Friend and with other hon. Members about the terminally ill. We do not care nearly well enough for our terminally ill. Frequently, we do not care for them at all. People should die with dignity — and, indeed, most deaths in Britain occur at home.
One of the most distressing aspects of some of the recent discussions has been that the shroud waving is done with people who are dying. To have patients who are terminally ill with cancer rolled up before me as if it is my fault that they will not survive is wicked. It is a cruel way of trying to wring money out of the Health Service, often for quite inappropriate purposes, because often it would be much better if the patient were able to go home to his or her family to receive appropriate home and palliative care to meet the end with some peace. I feel strongly about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent asked about prevention. He was right to do that and I am glad that he did. I say to the hon. Member for Peckham that if we just continue putting more money into surgery and fail to tackle prevention, then we fail those people who are heart patients. The number of people needing care and treatment, particularly for heart disease which is our major killer, is not under control and is among the highest in the world. We fail not only the people who wait for care, but their families, sons and daughters, as well because there seems to be a family proneness to heart disease. Unless the nation tackles the matter of the prevention of preventable diseases, especially heart disease and cancer, all that we will continue to do is to build more and more hospitals and cut up more and more veins and arteries but not improve the quality of life for our people as a whole.
I am afraid that I shall not have time to deal with all the points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made an eloquent speech arid spoke about the highly efficient hospital in her constituency which, as she knows, I visited last year. Historically, Maidstone has had a surprisingly low level of locally provided hospital health care. The nucleus-designed Maidstone hospital was opened in 1983 and replaced two and a half old hospitals. Things began to improve, took off at a rate of knots, and activity has risen phenomenally since the hospital opened. Overall, activity is about 30 per cent. up.
Some types of day case work has gone up by over 200 per cent. The key point is that last year alone in-patient treatments rose by 13 per cent. Nobody could plan for that level of increase in demand or for that level of increase in expenditure— 13 per cent. in 12 months. I know that the hospital is well in the forefront of cost improvement programmes and I know about all the things that it is doing. I have before me a note which the chairman prepared for my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who will appreciate the kind remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The chairman says that they are re-examining all possible cost improvement ideas, exploring all legal and soon-to-be-legal income-generating ideas, and that they would welcome more insurance-based patients. She says that they note that their two local private hospitals are running well below capacity. They are reviewing all existing services with a view to paring the low priority areas, and even recognising that there would be some concern about those.
I am able to help my hon. Friend with one problem about the storm damage. We hope to make announcements shortly about some financial help being given to those regions that have suffered particularly from storm damage. I cannot tell my hon. Friend tonight how much it will be—it will be given to the regions and they will decide but it will be substantial. We hope that that will assist with solving the problems of districts such as Maidstone, especially their immediate short-term problems.
Any reading of debates on health care, going back to the time when the whole thing was founded 40 years ago, leads one to the conclusion that all Ministers who stand at this Dispatch Box have had exactly the same problem: the money goes up, and the demand goes up even faster. It is never likely that the demand will decrease and, under a Conservative Government, I suspect it is unlikely that the funding will decrease either. It will carry on going up, but it will never be enough.

London Ambulance Service

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to follow the last debate on the National Health Service as a whole by initiating a debate on the London ambulance service, although this is a debate that should not be necessary. First, one would expect any ambulance service in the United Kingdom to be conducted in such a way that a debate in public on its efficiency and proper funding would be unnecessary. Secondly, any Government's view of this public service should be so high that criticism or controversy of the sort which I am afraid I must initiate tonight should be unnecessary.
This debate, as with the previous debate, is about resources. Ideally, I suppose, ambulance services, being domiciliary and local, should be a matter not for Parliament but for some form of local government. Indeed, until not long ago in London that was the case, coming as they did under the LCC for many years and, later, the GLC, which the Government have dissolved.
Somewhere in the Consolidated Fund there is an amount for the London ambulance service, because as from April of this year that service became directly funded by the Department of Health and Social Security and not by a levy on the four regional hospital authorities which constitute the London area, and I shall conclude my remarks by discussing the budget.
This is not the first debate on this topic in this House. On 15 May 1986 the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) raised this issue from the Government Benches. I have had two Adjournment debates on it—on 3 October 1986, beginning at column 258 of the Official Report for that date, and on 14 May 1987, beginning at column 477. Both dealt primarily with the non-emergency service, which was put into a state of disruption, particularly in the summer of 1986, and I raised the matter of the so-called "walking cases" with the Minister.
We have had major differences of opinion on these issues, and I now believe, as a result of subsequent correspondence and parliamentary answers, that we have a major disagreement about some of the facts. I shall probe these matters tonight because there might be a prima facie case of maladministration. 1 do not want to say that that is so until I have given the Minister a chance to reply tonight, and subsequently in writing if she wishes to do so. I appreciate—although I do not apologise for bringing her here at this hour to answer the debate— that she may wish to reflect on some of the points I shall make.
It is unfortunately necessary for me to raise other topics, including that of the emergency service in 1987 and particularly from the spring of this year. Then I shall look at the so-called ORCON standards and the relationship of that to London. My next subject will be equipment and the control of the London ambulance service, and finally I shall return to the important matter of finance and the budget because here is one service, the emergency service, which nobody would deny must be demand led. That is a very unusual service for any Government to provide, especially for this Government.
I want to begin with the question of the non-emergency service. I revert to the debate on 31 October 1986 when the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said:
A report in The Guardian of 27 October confirms some of the events. It says that the London Ambulance Service is


carrying 30 per cent. fewer non-emergency patients today than it was two years ago. It says that only 27,500 patient journeys per week were being made this year compared with 39,500 in 1984. About 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported—a reduction of 44 per cent. I am more than happy at that development." —[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]
Walking patients are those who do not have to be carried on stretchers or by wheelchairs, but are certified by a medical authority as requiring ambulances to take them to out-patient departments at hospitals. I challenged the whole basis of that with the Minister on 31 October. I said that the matter had arisen as the result of a Rayner-type scrutiny which had no proper basis in fact.
On 6 November 1986 I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services:
what studies he has made and what evidence he has received, concerning alleged non-appropriate use of the non-emergency ambulance services in London; and by what percentage those calls have changed between 1984 and 1986.

Mrs. Currie: No formal studies have been made, as far as I am aware. The London ambulance service has drawn district health authorities' attention to the criteria set out in HC 78 (45) which states … we have no information on alleged non-appropriate use of non-emergency ambulance transport"—[Official Report, 6 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 598.]
That was the Minister's justification for the massive cut of 44 per cent. which affected many people in east London. Elderly ladies wrote to me saying that they had had no fewer than eight out-patient appointments cancelled during 1986 because the non-emergency ambulances did not arrive.
I have no sympathy whatever for the Minister having to reply to two debates tonight—[Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. The Minister is laughing, yet the amount of disruption and dismay that she has caused in my constituency alone as a result of this hard-hearted, hard-boiled attitude is almost unbelievable. I fight with words here, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no sympathy with the Minister for being here, but I have some sympathy with her because she laughs at such a serious and important matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I am laughing at the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spearing: I do not mind if the Minister laughs at me, but she dare not laugh at my constituents.

Mrs. Currie: I am not laughing at the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to hear that.
In a letter to me on 26 June 1987, after the second debate on these matters, the Minister wrote in response to my claim that the massive cut was a result of the Rayner Studies. She said:
With such a vast organisation as the National Health Service there are inevitably areas which can be managed more effectively. This is why Norman Fowler established a series of scrutinies on similar lines to the programme Lord Rayner had introduced in Whitehall. The scrutinies were designed to look at areas in which services to the public and value for money could be improved.
Fine; we would all go along with that. The Minister continued:
Therefore, as you will appreciate, the scrutiny of the non-emergency ambulance service you referred to was initiated by this Department. The scrutiny suggested that there was misuse of the service.

That is directly contrary to the written answer that the Minister gave me on 6 November 1986. Either there was evidence of misuse or there was not. I notice the words
The scrutiny suggested that there was misuse of the service".
I have yet to see that evidence, and I ask the Minister to produce the evidence now or later.
During the debate I also asked how regional hospital authorities check on the private contractors employed to take up some of the demand that the London ambulance service was prevented from meeting. In an answer dated 6 May 1987, the Minister said:
Health authorities are responsible for day-to-day management of National Health Service ambulance services. It is for them to arrange the most appropriate efficient and cost-effective means of transport for each of the patients the ambulance service is asked to convey. This may involve the use of taxi, hire car or other private contractors as well as volunteers. Standards of safety and payments to private contractors are not set centrally: health authorities are responsible for negotiating contracts locally and for setting standards of service, patient care and safety."—[Official Report, 6 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 429.]
I have no doubt that taxi drivers and mini-cab drivers are good-hearted people, but they are not trained to provide the service for which at one time the non-emergency service of the London ambulance service was responsible. Even if the Minister turns out to be right and there is some evidence of misuse, it is quite wrong not to lay down central standards for the use of private contractors, particularly when sick people have to be taken to outpatient departments, as they must be if they are to recover and regain their health.
The second area I outlined was emergency services. Unfortunately, the emergency services are now in trouble, despite what the Minister said in the debate on 14 May 1987:
The new salary structure for ambulance men came into effect in March 1986 and it changed radically the pay arrangements for ambulance personnel. It provided an opportunity for all ambulance services to rid themselves of inefficient working practices. With the introduction of the new structure, the London ambulance service took steps to improve the front line — in other words, the emergency service that it provides. This meant that temporarily staff resources had to be transferred from non-emergency services to be redeployed on front-line work."—[Official Report, 14 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 482.]
The hon. Lady was saying that we had to change the standard of the non-emergency services to keep the front-line service going, but in the early part of this year the front-line service was not kept going.
We now have difficulties with the emergency service — arguments and allegations have been made about shortages of vehicles. In the debate from which I have just quoted, I said that I had received evidence that since April of this year the DHSS had cash-capped the ambulance service, and the managers, in order to keep within the cash cap, had cut the budgets from the top, so that all managers of ambulance services were told how much overtime could be worked in their stations. Ambulance men were standing by at home, not able to go out, when vehicles were available.
There was much argument about that, and the Minister may wish to contest the facts, but it is clear from her letter to me of 8 September 1987 that there had been difficulties. She challenged some of the facts I had given, and she may have been right in making some corrections. Her letter said:


Officials have looked into the articles you enclosed in your letter"—
I had enclosed numerous press articles—
and they inform me that, for example, during the 24 hour period mentioned for 29 May 58 vehicles and not 52 were single manned for some period; of these 30 were single manned for one hour or less; 11 for one hour, but less than two; two for more than two hours, but less than three and three were single manned for less than five hours".
The figures may have been marginally wrong, but for that number of ambulances to be single-manned at that time shows that there was something wrong. We know that, since that time, there have been arguments within the service, which is not noted for its lack of concern for the public. No ambulance man will do things against the public interest without good reason, otherwise he would not, I am sure, be accepted for the service.
In a written answer on 10 July 1987 the Minister again said:
No emergency ambulance shifts were lost due to constraints of finance"—[Official Report, 10 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 311.]
I find that difficult to believe. Indeed, I received a copy of a letter from the National Union of Employees after our last debate on this subject, which had been sent to one "J. Moore, MP, Secretary of State". In that letter, dated 16 June, the union made various allegations about the number of ambulances that were single-manned. It said that, on 24 May, there were 39 single-manned ambulances and that the number of ambulances "unmanned or immobilised" was 26. The union sent the evidence to the Minister and asked him to do something about it.
I do not know what has happened since then, but I hope that there has been some change. I have been given to understand that, since about June, there has been a change in the arrangements for overtime and the manning of ambulances. There has been some relief of the conditions and this may be due to what I call "cascade capping" of ambulance stations. If so, that is welcome. It may have had something to do with the questions that I have asked. It may have had something to do with the previous debate. I hope that it was.
It is also true that, since that time, there have been other problems as a result of additional demand. I suggest that additional demand occurs if hospitals are closed, as they often are, and therefore journeys are longer. I have been told that quite a lot of the work of the emergency ambulance service is now to fill in the gaps in the non-emergency service. That work involves the transport of patients from one hospital to another because of the closure of wards, the shortage of nurses and the fact that operations must be done elsewhere or not at all. In other words, there is a cascade effect on the ambulance service as a result of all the problems of which we are aware. There is a knock-on effect, or, more graphically, a knock-back effect.
I am told that, as a result of those problems, there were discussions with the ambulance men about spreading the resources in different ways. There were new ideas about shifts and transferring ambulances from areas that were relatively well off to those that were not. I believe that that meant that resources were spread more thinly. It is no surprise to learn that there have been some industrial problems, and the Minister may refer to them. However, I understand that they have been resolved.
The question of spreading resources brings me directly to the standards that are laid down by the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that the Minister agrees that those standards are right and that the service and its budget should be built upon them. The basis for those standards is derived from the ORCON standard, and to show how that standard applies to London I wish to quote from the report made to North East Thames regional health authority at its meeting in September 1987 regarding the ambulance service. Paragraph 11 states:
The Emergency Call standard is that 95 per cent. of calls must be activated within 3 minutes of the receipt of the call"—
that is, activated from the central control.
For the L.A.S. as a whole the current standard achieved is 91 per cent. and for the North East Division, 93 per cent.
In addition in metropolitan areas it is recommended that for 95 per cent. of emergency calls the scene should be reached within 14 minutes of the receipt of the call. For the North East Division the figure is 17 minutes with 87 per cent. of emergency calls responded to within 14 minutes. In the service as a whole, 89 per cent. of calls are reached within 14 minutes.
Most of those standards, therefore, are not reached. Paragraph 12 states:
The activation times for emergency calls achieved by the L.A.S. leaves room for improvement and it is expected that when the Central Emergency Control has been updated activation times will be reduced. However, the project is now running two years behind schedule and consideration is being given to bringing some of the new components, such as up-to-date telephones, into the existing Control.
Given traffic congestion in London, which is particularly bad in the North East Division it is unrealistic to expect that 95 per cent. of all emergency calls will be met within a response time of 14 minutes. The L.A.S. Short-Term Programme for the current year proposed a figure of 90 per cent. as a target and this has been accepted by the managing authority. Achievement of this target in the North East Division will be assisted by the review of the A. and E." —
that is, accident and emergency—
rotas currently being undertaken.
In plain language, that means that, because of traffic congestion in north-east London — and we all understand the problems — instead of upping the equipment and manpower, the service is reducing the standard. As an east London Member, I do not consider that satisfactory. It should be the other way around. I am not saying that every year the standard will be hit: that will not necessarily always happen. However, deliberately to reduce the standard is surely to go about matters in the wrong way, and it is not untypical of what has been happening.
Let me now deal with the problem of equipment. There is dissatisfaction with some of the vehicles, which, I suppose, is to be expected. I understand that Britain does not produce an ambulance chassis: I do not think we ever did. That is a great pity. We might have led the world, and I am sure that design and practice in London could have led Britain—as, I believe, it used to in the days of the London County council, when our great Daimler ambulances were much admired throughout the world. Why can we not bring that back? I am sure that there would be plenty of enthusiasm among staff and experienced officers if it could be done.
The question of control equipment was mentioned in the extract that I have just read. I have also been told that for the sake of economy, less experienced people have been employed in the control room. I can think of nothing that would reduce the morale of ambulance men more than for people to be in control who had not been out on the job.
If I may he a little imprudent, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is rather like someone occupying the Chair in the House without having been a Member of Parliament. I cannot imagine hon. Members agreeing to that for a moment.
Why should ambulance men out on the job speak over the radio to people who have little insight into the job that they have been doing? Surely that is absolutely wrong. I believe that it has happened, but that there may be second thoughts about it; if so, I hope that there will be some very quick thinking.
Let me now refer to the vexed question of defibrillators. I shall not go into alternative descriptions of them, as the Minister is here tonight. However, I understand that they are a life-saving apparatus used in cases of heart failure, and there is a possibility that they can be placed in all emergency ambulances. Indeed, I understand that some ambulances already contain them. I am told that in the East Ham depot, in my borough of Newham, there is one defibrillator; in West Ham there is none. I understand that in some parts of the country most ambulances are fitted with them. What I do know is that ambulance men are encouraged to go round with begging bowls and ask the public, industrial firms and charitable bodies to give money for defibrillators to be fitted in their ambulances. I am told that they cost between £2,000 and £3,000 each. What is that—one-tenth of an ambulance man's pay for a year? I do not know, but it is something of that sort.
I should like to know from the Minister — if not tonight then at a later time—what the national policy is on defibrillators. Can they not be fitted to every ambulance, or need they not be fitted? Are they being over-publicised? Or is it just a gimmick? Do the Government really think it meet and proper for ambulance men to spend their hard-earned spare time going round running raffles and doing all these charitable works which are sometimes advocated by hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches to get extra equipment for their ambulances? Nothing could be more demeaning, and nothing could demean the Government more if that is their policy. If it is their policy for machines which are unnecessary, it is worse; and worse still if the machines are necessary and are not supplied out of public funds.
The mention of public funds brings me back to the budget. I quote from another reply that the Minister gave me on 10 July 1987:

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements he has made with the London ambulance service to provide it with sufficient funds for the year 1987–88 to enable it to respond to the annual pattern of emergency service demands for its services within the established standards of response times.

Mrs. Currie: We have made no arrangements direct with the London ambulance service. The South West Thames regional health authority is responsible for managing and funding the London ambulance service and will no doubt take into account the expected levels of emergency calls and the minimum response times that the Department recommends in setting the budget."—[Official Report, 10 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 312.]
That is an extraordinary answer because, as the hon. Lady told me in the debate, the South West Thames regional health authority had ceased to precept on the other four regional health authorities for funds.
I quote now from the same North East Thames regional authority's report, paragraph 8:
With effect from 1987–88 the South West Thames RHA receives a financial allocation for the LAS directly from the DHSS, replacing the former method of proportional allocations from each of the Thames RHAs. The revenue cash

limit for 1986–87 was £14·714 million and an overspending of £0·541 million will be a first call on the 1987–88 budget. The LAS is subject to a 0·25 per cent. p.a., budget reduction over the Strategic Plan period.
I read that as meaning that out of the £14·714 million for 1987–88 £541,000 has to be paid back for an overspend in the previous financial year. Of course, it could have been taken account of in the allocation by the Department of Health and Social Security, but it was an allocation by the DHSS which the Minister seemed to dodge in the answer to the question that I have just quoted.
But, in addition, we are told, there is a 0·25 per cent. budget reduction — I believe that it is called the "efficiency factor" or something like that. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the London ambulance service is being funded by a method which is not clear to this House.
As I have suggested—and I do not think that anyone could possibly disagree—the London ambulance service must be demand led. It must keep to the ORCON standards, and be so managed and equipped with vehicles as to enable it to meet that demand. It may be that the demand for emergency services is increasing. It is within the discretion of the doctor to decide what is an emergency. There will be more road accidents, arid difficult cases may have to be transferred. Heaven help us if there is another disaster, but the risk factor must always be taken into account. We must remember that another disaster such as the one at King's Cross may occur, so there must be sufficient ambulances to ensure that, while that disaster is being dealt with properly, other places have sufficient ambulances to cope.
I accept that there must be a balance, but surely when a budget is made it must be based on experience of demand, with the ORCON standards being applied, and it can then be decided how many vehicles and men are necessary. I have no evidence from the debates that we have had — I hope that another debate will not be necessary and that this will be the last—that that is the process that occurs in the DHSS, South-West Thames regional health authority or at ambulance headquarters at Waterloo.
The Minister went to King's Cross and praised the ambulance service and the other services. I hope that she will consider what happens at ambulance headquarters at Waterloo. The office is working under considerable difficulties, because it is trying to eke out the money that is made available and dealing with industrial relations problems that have arisen because the money is not sufficient to do the job. I hope that the hon. Lady will translate her words at King's Cross into action at Waterloo.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate is important and timely. It is appropriate that we should be discussing this subject, and I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his assiduous work in continually exposing the cuts that have taken place in the London ambulance service over the past few years and for speaking up for the people of London on this matter.
I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, which has a large number of London ambulance service employees in its membership. It is in that regard that I am speaking, but I also represent a constituency in which the level of car ownership is one of


the lowest in London. My constituents obviously rely on the ambulance service for dealing with not only emergency but non-emergency cases to a greater extent than areas where there is a high level of car ownership. However, in those areas people are increasingly being forced to use their own transport to get to and from hospital.
A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister, the Minister and almost every other hon. Member quite properly praised the emergency services — the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and station staff — on their heroic efforts at King's Cross. A circular has just been distributed giving national salary rates for ambulance staff. I shall quote them because it is relevant that people understand the level of pay that ambulance staff receive, commensurate with their responsibilities and duties. A leading ambulance man, as fom 1 April 1987, is on an annual rate of £10,330, which is less than half that of a Member of Parliament. A qualified ambulance man, employed on a range of ambulance duties, receives £4·59 per hour; an ambulance man receives £3·33 per hour and an ambulance cadet receives £1·95 per hour. They are not high rates of pay by any stretch of the imagination yet the responsibilities of the job are awesome.
The King's Cross disaster was horrific by any stretch of the imagination. It was a complicated issue with which to deal because of the fire in the tunnel, the necessity of getting people out of the tunnel, the problems of smoke inhalation, and so on. Thirty people died, a further 20 were seriously injured, and obviously many people suffered from shock and had to be removed to hospital. That disaster caused chaos throughout most of north London and it certainly had a significant effect on the emergency services throughout London.
It is important to understand that, despite the horror and magnitude of the King's Cross disaster, the emergency services just about managed to cope. I dread to think how they would cope with a disaster of the magnitude of a Boeing 747 or equivalent airliner coming down over London. That would mean dealing with at least 500 casualties immediately — one would expect all the passengers to be casualties—and if the plane came down in a densely populated area it would cause serious injury to people in the area.
I hope that the Minister will listen to my point and answer it seriously. If the ambulance service was so totally stretched at King's Cross, how would it cope with an enormous disaster in London? The answer is that it could not. On the night of the King's Cross fire there should have been 85 ambulances available to go to the scene. Only 40 were able, because there was shortage of vehicles, drivers and the controllers to get them there. The consequence was that in other parts of London there were long response times for ambulances to go to emergencies such as heart attacks and so on when people need to be rushed to hospital.
On 26 November, the night on which we were discussing the problems of funding in the NHS, which was only a week after the disaster, there was such a shortage of controllers at the London ambulance headquarters in Waterloo road that the north-west and north-east sectors of London had to be linked to deal with control work that night. That obviously meant a less efficient service by any stretch of the imagination.
There was a threatened emergency at Heathrow airport on 24 November. I understand that only one LAS ambulance was able to go immediately to the airport to deal with that potential disaster. Fortunately, there was no disaster, but there was a shortage of ambulances to go to Heathrow on that occasion. The hospital alongside Heathrow airport, the Central Middlesex hospital, has a casualty unit so under-staffed that it has been on absolute emergency only for the past 18 months. I raise these matters because it is not good enough that London's emergency services should operate on the knife edge of survival at present. The London ambulance service is an example of that.
In days gone by the London ambulance service was a local authority responsibility, in common with other parts of the country. It was run efficiently by the Greater London council for several years. Staffing levels were higher, the availability of vehicles was higher and the ability to deal with London's health problems was certainly better than it is now. It was then taken away from the GLC and, as we know, the GLC was abolished in an act of vindictiveness unparalled in modern politics.
London Health Emergency, which is a health watchdog body that has done excellent work, produced "Ambulance Alert" in 1986. That showed the growing crisis facing the London ambulance service. The report was made available to the DHSS, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's response. The report showed that at that time the LAS achieved the standard required — that 50 per cent. of emergency calls should be responded to within seven minutes — only 25 per cent. of the time. That meant that in relation to total emergency demand of 469,000 calls, 117,000, were not reached within the appropriate time. If one assumes — it is a reasonable assumption — that 1 per cent. of the calls are critical, that means that 1,173 people in London were put at serious risk due to the inability of the service to meet demands at that time. Those figures are for the final quarter of 1985, and the picture has got considerably worse since then. I stress the fact that the figures refer to 1985 because that is the time covered by the report.
In June 1985, the four trade unions that represent the London ambulance service — the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union — carried out a monitoring exercise of the emergency service in relation to the ORCON standards. They concluded that only 45 per cent. of 999 calls met the standards, that 50 per cent. were delayed by up to three minutes and that 5 per cent. were delayed by six minutes or more. "Ambulance Alert" says:
As the Strategic Plan 1984 concedes, only one survey of the non-emergency service had been done over the last 12 months. Indeed the Strategic Plan makes it clear that the standards are now generally disregarded. In referring to standards, it says: 'There is little doubt however that compared to the target standards established in the ORCON Report of 1974, the poor performances identified in former years still prevail in many areas'.
It is important for the House to understand that people who work in the ambulance service have an esprit de corps. They are determined that their service will be run efficiently. They regard themselves as being in the front line and take a pride in the service that they provide. It is difficult for them to be proud, however, when they see nothing but cuts all around them and difficulty in meeting


the response times that they want to achieve because of restrictions. Their suggestions are advanced in a spirit of wanting an efficient service.
London has special problems. It has a fluctuating population, as most tourists to Britain visit London. It also has enormous traffic congestion problems which seriously affect the ambulance service. The average speed of an ambulance in the morning peak period has fallen during the past 15 years from 13·9 mph to 12·6 mph in inner London. That is a 9·3 per cent. reduction. The average speed in the evening peak period has fallen from 13·7 mph to 12·2 mph—an 11 per cent. decrease.
The recent accident near Blackfriars bridge caused chaos which took five hours to clear, and a burst water main at Swiss Cottage created problems which took four hours to clear. Those examples demonstrate that the service always operates on a knife edge. I hope that the Minister realises that the service needs more ambulances and funding to cope with those problems.
The closure of hospitals and the trend to centralise services in one district general hospital create longer journey times for ambulances. My borough lost the casualty unit at the Liverpool road hospital some years ago. More recently, it lost the Royal Northern hospital, so we have only one casualty unit at the Whittington hospital. Casualty units in Haringey were closed and transferred to the North Middlesex hospital. The same has happened in Hackney.
I hope that the Minister will make a considered and reasoned response to the London Health Emergency report. She ought to realise that the shortage of staff in the ambulance service means that non-emergency patients are often kept waiting unacceptably long. Indeed, in some cases, even emergencies are kept waiting. That demoralises staff, which leads to absenteeism and pressure on crews. There has been a serious increase in the number of assaults on staff by those to whom they go. The number of days lost due to sickness has risen from 3,864 in August 1983 to 4,406 in August 1985 — a 14 per cent. increase. In August 1983 there were 124 assaults on staff; and in an equivalent period in 1984 there were 120 assaults, 96 on men and 24 on women. Those are serious matters and I trust that the Minister will look seriously at those problems experienced by the ambulance service.
In the provision of emergency services the ambulance service must be demand-led, but in the non-emergency services cuts of misery are being made. The ambulance service is continually reduced, hospital appointments are missed because an ambulance is not available, and there is the increasing pressure of privatisation which leads to greater inefficiency in hospitals. A patient fails to come in because an ambulance is not available and the time of the consultants, nurses and the hospital is wasted. That is an inefficient way in which to run the Health Service.
It is also inefficient for ambulances to make long journeys when taking people to hospital. It is also unfair on the patients concerned. An elderly lady in my constituency told me that it took two and a half hours to get to hospital in an ambulance. She did a tour of half of north London, something that she could have done without on a winter's morning. It would have been better for her and for the hospital if she had gone there directly.
When this report was produced, several conclusions were reached, and I want to highlight two of them. First, incredible secrecy surrounds the London ambulance service and the regional health authority. In the days of the

GLC it was easy to get information on the number of controllers, vehicles, and so on, available at any one time, but that is now difficult to obtain and it should be freely available to the public. [Interruption.] I do not know what is exciting the Minister, but no doubt she will contain her excitement until I have finished. The cut in resources and the rise in demand call for greater public expenditure on the ambulance service. That has not happened. Indeed, the reverse is the case.
The Government's policies towards community care, which are controversial, to put it mildly—many of us see those policies as a hidden cost-cutting exercise rather than an improvement in the quality of care— can also mean greater demand on the ambulance service which has not been sufficiently funded to meet such demand.
In a statement in late 1986, about a year ago, it was clear that non-emergency patient journeys — those carried by London ambulance service personnel—had fallen from 39,560 a week in 1984 to 27,507 in 1986. The biggest weekly reduction was in the number of walking patients was a fall of 44 per cent. Unfortunately, the term walking should be in inverted commas. The people to whom that phrase refers are often elderly or disabled, but, because they are so categorised, people assume that they can walk to hospital. I have met some of those patients struggling along the Holloway road trying to get to the Whittington hospital because there is no ambulance to pick them up. It is an insult to call such people walking patients. They clearly deserve and need help and sympathy, but they are getting the very opposite.
There are ominous trends towards privatisation in the ambulance service. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if she would tell us her Department's policy on that. We know that, for example, the Hampshire ambulance service tried a privatisation scheme with contracts with various taxi firms in that area. It tried to take the work away from the qualified ambulance personnel and pass it over to non-qualified people running minicab services and the like. I have a horror of that process.
Instead of qualified ambulance personnel being available to deal with non-emergency cases, increasingly the trend is either the use of a minicab service or of volunteer drivers. Indeed, before my father died he was ferried to the hospital for physiotherapy by a volunteer car driver. He was a very nice man, but he was a volunteer car driver who was trying to do his best and thought that he was helping out. There was nothing wrong with that man except that he was totally untrained for the work and did not have any qualifications for it. Therefore, when somebody such as my father, who was suffering from cancer and could not walk properly, fell over, that man did not know what to do. He had to call on neighbours or passers-by to help him. It is true that on that occasion I was able to get to the scene quickly and assist, but on other occasions there might not be anybody who could get to the scene.
It does not do much for the confidence of relatives—or, indeed the patient—to know that the person who is driving the car is not prepared or qualified to deal with emergencies. It is not good enough to expect volunteers, minicab drivers or anybody else — whatever their motives—to be able to cope with such problems, but that is exactly what is happening in the ambulance service at present.
I turn now to the question of staffing numbers in the ambulance service itself. In May 1985, there were 2,099 whole-time equivalent employees in the London ambulance service, of whom 60 were qualified leading ambulance men. In May 1987, the figure for whole-time equivalents had grown to 2,227·5 except that only 57 were qualified leading ambulance men. In other words, there were three fewer. The number of grade 4 qualified ambulance persons had also reduced from 1,560 to 1,509. Part-time ambulance persons, who had by then been introduced, had increased to 97·5 whole-time equivalents but, in terms of actual staff in post, had increased to 195. The trend appears to be to reduce the number of leading and qualified ambulance staff and to increase the number of part-time staff, with the unfortunate consequences of that. As a result, there has been a fall in the number of leading qualified ambulance staff.
Patient journeys undertaken by the London ambulance service have changed a great deal between 1985 and 1986. I accept that that is only a short period, but if the trend is extrapolated forwards—or even taken backwards—one can see that the figures that I am quoting show a trend and it is, therefore, perfectly valid to quote a year-on-year figure for this.
In 1985, of total patient journeys in thousands, there were 2,680·7 of which 90·6 per cent. were directly provided by the London ambulance service; 4·1 per cent. by agency services; 4·5 per cent. by hospital cars; 0·6 per cent. by other means and 0·1 per cent. by rail and air. In 1986, the number of directly provided journeys had decreased from 2,429·3 to 1,988·2, which is a drop to 85·2 per cent.; agency services had increased to 5·2 per cent., hospital cars to 7·7 per cent. and others to 1·8 per cent. In other words, the trend was a reduction in the number of journeys undertaken by the ambulance service itself and an increase in the number of journeys undertaken by hospital cars and other kinds of service. Therefore, the number of directly provided patient journeys fell in both absolute and proportionate terms while the number of journeys made in hospital cars increased, again in both absolute and proportionate terms.
A year ago, in December 1986, I asked a whole series of questions of the Minister's predecessors about these matters. The answers showed that emergency patient journeys in the London ambulance service had increased from 333,000 in 1979 to 476,000 in 1985. The number of non-emergency patient journeys totalled 1,680 in 1979. They increased to 2,302—a high point —in 1983, and went down to 2,205 in 1985. I suspect that the trend is continuing in that direction.
I then asked the Minister some questions on training. We are well aware and understand what training is given to qualified leading ambulance men, but there appears to be a trend, which is confirmed by the figures, of increasing the proportion of unqualified staff at the expense of qualified staff, and of the use of hospital car services increasing that number by an enormous amount, which suggests that they will be made by unqualified people. Indeed, on 16 December 1986, I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services
how much money has been paid to hospital car drivers in each of the London Ambulance Service areas for each year since 1983." —[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 468.]

We find that in 1984 the figure for north-west London was £75,829. By 1986–87—the current year—it had gone up to £120,000. In north-east London, it was £76,000 in 1984–85, and up to £155,000 in 1986–87. In south-west London it was £97,000 in 1984–85, and up to £158,000 in 1986–87. In south-east London, it was £100,000 in 1984–85, and up to £171,000 in 1986–87. The total figure for 1986–87 was £604,180 paid to the hospital car service, at the expense, I contend, of the ambulance service. These are serious matters. It is not good enough to allow such a trend to continue, with the damage that it is doing to the quality of service in London as a whole.
It is also interesting that, on 12 November this year, a circular was sent out from the DHSS about EC drivers' hours regulations. It states:
The Department of Transport in consultation with the DHSS has been considering the application of the revised Drivers' hours regulations to the Ambulance Service. In the opinion of the DOT the regulations apply".
It then gives the circumstances in which the regulations apply, and goes on to state:
Emergency ambulances are exempt from the EC Drivers' Hours and Tachograph rules. They are only subject to domestic regulations.
The limits on rest time, breaks, maximum duty without a break and daily 'spread over' have been abolished for domestic driving. The daily driving limit of 10 hours and the daily duty limit of 11 hours are retained.
I quote that circular because it is not satisfactory that the restriction on hours that applies to other drivers should be lifted in the case of ambulance staff. It seems to be a trend of putting unacceptable pressure on ambulance staff to work unacceptably long hours. That is obviously detrimental to them and to the service as a whole.
Those who work in the London ambulance service are people of enormous dedication and skill. They do not like the staff cuts. They do not like their inability to meet the ORCON response times. They do not like the shortage of controllers. Enormous pressure is put controllers at the London ambulance service headquarters. The psychological pressure of not being able to cope in an emergency is quite appalling. It is a day in, day out grinding fear. Air traffic controllers, fire controllers and so on in London are put under the same enormous pressure. It is not acceptable, sane or sensible for the capital city of this country to have its emergency services working on a knife edge of survival, day in, day out. The ambulance service needs to be looked at. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hope to the people in the ambulance service who want to see the service restored to its former level of glory and efficiency, rather than see people forced to use mini cabs, private cars, volunteer drivers and so on, and the unsatisfactory nature of that service.
Many people in London have enormous regard and respect for the ambulance service and the work that it does. That is right and proper. But they also feel that while they are waiting around for hours and hours for ambulances to arrive in non-emergency matters, or, in some cases, having to wait an unacceptably long time for an emergency ambulance to arrive, their confidence in the service is diminished. We in London are getting a second-rate emergency service that is increasingly relying on volunteers.
When the ambulance service in London is cut back, as it has been cut back, the poorest people suffer. Those people who have access to a car or can afford a car or


minicab can get to the hospital for a casualty admission, which may not be an emergency, but poor people have to wait and wait, and that is the worry.
I hope that when the Minister replies, she will tell us that the continual curtailment of expenditure by the London ambulance service and this process of diminishing service and expenditure will come to an end. I hope, too, that she will recognise the value of the ambulance service and increase expenditure on it accordingly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on winning a place in the ballot and on raising yet again the question of the London ambulance service. I have taken note of the concerns that he has expressed and I hope that I shall deal with them as I make my speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Betty Boothroyd): Order. Does the hon. Lady seek the permission of the House to speak a second time? I believe that she has already spoken.

Mrs. Currie: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I may speak, with the leave of the House.

Mr. Corbyn: What if we say no?

Mrs. Currie: I will go away!
I have noted the points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and I share his concern about violence against staff. He will know of the efforts made during the past year by a committee in the other place. Considerable effort is being made to assist and advise staff, and to ensure they are not put at risk. Unfortunately, for ambulance men, I am afraid there will be occasions when that is almost unavoidable, but we will do whatever we can to minimise that risk.

Mr. Corbyn: I welcome the fact that studies are continuing on this matter. Will the hon. Lady give us an idea of when this committee will report and make its recommendations?

Mrs. Currie: It has, as I recall, already produced some guidelines on social services, which was the original reason for the committee being set up. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman went on to complain about how difficult it was to get information and how much easier it was when the GLC ran the ambulance service. He then produced strings of information, much of which I had provided through parliamentary questions and the various debates initiated by the hon. Member for Newham, South. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Islington, North has noticed the amount of information. In 1986, when all this business was going on, he spent a lot of time away from London, in El Salvador, Florence, Cuba and Nicaragua. He also went to Pisa and Copenhagen, he was at the Fenestras conference in El Salvador, and he visited India and Bangladesh. At least this time he is talking about his own constituents. That is where he was in 1986, according to what he has declared in the Register of Members Interests. I am not surprised that he missed some of the information that the hon. Member for Newham, South and I were sharing.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I hope the Minister will accept that she is making a very cheap point. If she

knows London and knows of the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in London, or if she ever listens to London radio or reads a London newspaper, she will know that my hon. Friend is extremely active in his constituents' interests. She does not have to think that he is like some Conservative Back Benchers who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. My hon. Friend manages to be a good internationalist and an especially assiduous local Member of Parliament at the same time.

Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North is very grateful for that little reference, and I am sure also that his constituents have heard it.
Let me put in context one or two statistics which I think the hon. Gentleman probably missed. The London ambulance service runs to 1,000 vehicles. I said that in a reply to one of his hon. Friends earlier this year, and the reply is in Hansard. The service answers emergencies at the rate of 1,300 every day of the year. The average ambulance journey in London costs £18. We have no end of statistics. I am more than happy to go on providing hon. Gentlemen with all the statistics they want; what they do with them is another matter. I hope at least that they understand them. I suspect from what they have been saying tonight that they do not entirely understand them.
It is appropriate for me to say something at the outset about the ambulance service and the work that its staff do. The service has been the subject of much scrutiny and change recently, partly as a result of the Rayner scrutiny of the non-emergency services, and partly as a result of the new pay structures that were introduced last year. Both had far reaching consequences for the service.
Without the intrusion of any partisan element, want to pay tribute to the ambulance men and women who provide us with an excellent service and carry out demanding jobs. The most recent examples of that were during the storm on 16 October and, as hon. Members have mentioned, during the fire at King's Cross station. One of the reasons why I went immediately to the scene of the fire was that I am responsible for aspects of disaster planning. I am completely satisfied that the ambulance service, and all the services involved, coped brilliantly with what was a terrible tragedy. I am sure that one of the reasons why there were fewer ambulances than Opposition Members have claimed were needed was that, sadly, there were comparatively few live casualties. I was reliably informed by everyone I met that the ambulance service coped and that, people were satisfied.

Mr. Corbyn: I, too, pay tribute to the ambulance staff, who coped magnificently that night. However, has the Minister studied the effect on other parts of London of the movement of ambulances towards the King's Cross fire and the response times achieved in other parts of London for individual emergencies that night?

Mrs. Currie: It is all a matter of judgment, particularly for the staff in charge, of what is the major priority on any occasion. If there is a major disaster, we expect services elsewhere to be affected. I had some difficulty in getting to the House on the night in question because of the amount of emergency traffic in the neighbourhood. The service responded brilliantly that night, and I have no doubt that it not only saved lives but relieved a great deal of the worry and pain of those who were not badly injured, but needed assistance.
The ambulance service is often the public's first contact with the Health Service, which gives it a special responsibility. Like many other aspects of the Health Service, some of which we rehearsed earlier, it tends to be taken for granted until it is needed. Like many other free services, it is occasionally abused by thoughtless people. I am sure that Opposition Members would not deny that. It happens, and it has happened. The people with whom we are dealing are not perfect.
About 20 million journeys are undertaken each year by the ambulance service in England. In 1985–86 the London ambulance service carried ·5 million 999 patients, which is an astonishing figure.
In March last year the new salary structure for ambulance men came into effect and radically changed the pay arrangements for ambulance personnel. It provided an opportunity for all ambulance services to rid themselves of what were readily admitted to be inefficient working practices, most of which, sad to tell, Opposition Members seemed to support. It was intended that the changes should lead to an ambulance service that was more sensitively geared to patients needs, in terms of staff deployment, rather than to custom and practice.
Concurrently with the introduction of this new structure, the London ambulance service took steps to improve the front line—the emergency service. It had little choice but to make improvements to the part of the service that was involved in many cases with the life or death of a patient. In doing so, staff resources had to be transferred from the non-emergency service to front-line work. That left the London ambulance service short of non-emergency staff — or shorter than it would have wished — and it introduced urgent measures to try to curtail demand on the non-emergency work so that it could continue to provide for the patients who most needed its services.
The South West Thames regional health authority, which manages the London ambulance service on behalf of the four Thames regions, took immediate and successful steps to increase recruitment to the non-emergency service to make up for the shortfall. I have answered questions raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South and by other hon. Members who have requested details of progress with recruitment during the past year and a half. The hon. Member for Islington, North accurately quoted the figures. I am more than happy to repeat them.
The number of leading ambulance men in May 1985 was 60. By May 1987 that figure was 57. That represents whole-time equivalents. The number of grade 4 ambulance persons was 1,560 in May 1985, and by May 1987 it was 1,509. The numbers of grades 1, 2 and 3 ambulance persons were respectively 53, 237, and 189 in May 1985, making a total of 479. That had risen to 564 by May 1987, and the number of part-time ambulance people was nil in May 1985. It was 97·5 whole-time equivalents in May 1987, which is 195 staff. That is how we run a better service on a tighter budget. We have slightly fewer chiefs and rather more Indians. It is also worth putting on record that the ambulance service accepted a 5 per cent. pay rise on 27 November.
Part-time employees were introduced into the London ambulance service only 18 months ago to try to make the work force as flexible as possible in order to cover the different and increasing demands that Opposition

Members have described. In addition to the nearly 200 people now employed on a part-time basis, there has been a significant increase in the number of full-time ambulance staff. Almost every month in 1986 about 30 people were going through training in the ambulance service in London and with low resignation rates we are now seeing the benefit of this sustained recruitment campaign. The first crew on duty at King's Cross had only recently finished training and was new to the service.
The total numbers of staff now employed is higher than it was two years ago before the upheavals of reorganisation began. Nobody can complain that the staffing of the London ambulance service has not responded dramatically to the early criticisms. There are now about 2,325 people employed by the service, compared with 2,099 two and a half years ago.
I shall now deal with the reduction in the number of non-emergency patient journeys. I can confirm that there has been a reduction in the number of journeys undertaken. As I have done before, I should like to make some comments about the reason for that reduction. First, as I have already said, the London ambulance service was short of staff at the beginning of the year starting on 1 March 1986, about 18 months ago, because of the move of some non-emergency staff to front-line work. Inevitably, that resulted in a reduction in the number of journeys that it was able to undertake. Secondly, for many years there has been much concern about the use of ambulances for patients who have no medical need for them. The hon. Member for Islington, North may well have a view about the medical need of patients, but the only person who can decide is a doctor. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I can decide.
Particularly since the Rayner scrutiny report in 1984 on non-emergency ambulance services, health authorities have been encouraged to identify and eliminate potential abuses of ambulance transport. Ambulance transport is provided for patients using the Health Service who, in the opinion of the clinician in charge of their case, are unable to travel by any other means. The advice to health authorities is clear and is in circular HC(78)45, paragraph 2, which I think was issued by the last Labour Government. That advice also makes provision for ambulance transport in some cases where patients do not have access to private transport and public transport is not available. This criterion is unlikely to be applicable within the London ambulance service area, although it may well apply in my constituency in Derbyshire.
Some out-patients who formerly enjoyed transport by ambulance were not strictly eligible for other reasons, either because they were able to travel by other means or because they were being transported to locations outside the National Health Service, such as, to social services day departments or day centres. The NHS does not carry the responsibility for transporting passengers who are not patients. Doctors are asked to take care in authorising ambulance transport and to ensure that they consider the medical need criterion, especially for patients who undertake a course of treatment involving a number of routine attendances at out-patient departments. At first, ambulance transport is appropriate and reasonable for such attendances, but, with progress in the patient's condition, that becomes unnecessary. That means refusing people a service that they had before and, naturally, they may feel aggrieved. However, it is right to refuse that service.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has not reconciled her answer with her letter to me about abuse. There may have been marginal problems, such as the ones with the social services, which could have been ironed out, but a massive cut of 40 per cent. surely needs more explanation than the rather administrative jargon that the Minister is pumping out.

Mrs. Currie: I am doing my best to answer the hon. Gentleman, but as I told him at Question Time recently when he raised this matter, he never likes my answers, and I suspect that he never will—

Mr. Spearing: Because they are such bad answers.

Mrs. Currie: — but I shall go on giving them in the way that I wish and in the way that I think is right. So long as I stand at this Dispatch Box I shall give the answers, and he will no doubt go on disagreeing with them.
There have been calls for the criteria for ambulance transport to be extended to include social and economic grounds, for example in a report published last year by Age Concern. I have every sympathy with pressure groups which we fund, which fight hard for the interests of their clients, but the NHS resources must be used efficiently and for health purposes and health care and not for other purposes. The ambulance service must be included in this. It is not a taxi service. Nor is it a bus service provided free of charge. It is a highly specialised service with skilled personnel. To use it as a free bus is the equivalent of using an operating theatre for a tea party.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister comment on what the Medway health authority thought was the economical use of the ambulance service? I cite the case of Hayley Girt. The ambulance was called at Sheppey hospital at 1.1 pm. Hayley Girt had been bitten by a dog and needed stitches and had to be transferred to East Grinstead. Because of the excessively economical use of the ambulance it went to various parts of the area to pick up people, and Hayley did not arrive at East Grinstead and begin to have stitches in her face until 4 pm. Would the hon. Lady regard as economical use of a non-emergency ambulance a child having to wait three hours to have stitches in her face, having had to go all over the country before getting the treatment that she needed?

Mrs. Currie: Has the hon. Lady sent me details of that case?

Ms. Harman: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Currie: When she sends it to me, I will respond with pleasure. With the scale of activity of the London ambulance service, it would be absolutely amazing if there were not occasional problems. It would be nice—and the ambulance staff would welcome it — if Labour Members, including the hon. Lady, praised the service sometimes for the exceptionally high standards that it achieves most of the time.
There are provisions for patients who do not qualify for ambulance transport to have their travel expenses to hospital paid under the hospital fares scheme. Help with the cost of travelling to and from hospital for treatment is given automatically to people in families whose heads are receiving regular weekly payments of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. I suspect that that is not nearly widely enough known or widely enough claimed. In addition, help is provided for people in families whose income after payment of the travelling expenses in

question would be barely sufficient to cover their requirements, assessed broadly by supplementary benefit standards. This assessment takes account of the expenditure incurred in attending hospital, and expensive journeys—again, such as those my constituents have to make — could bring patients on a modest or average income within the scope of the scheme.
These arrangements may not cover all cases of difficulty, but they help to remove some of the apparent anomalies to which attention has been drawn tonight. The intention is that help should be given to those most in need. Any extension of the present scheme could have considerable financial implications and we must be aware that that would inevitably divert money from direct patient care.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister accept that it is not well known in some circles that such payments are available? In any event they have to be claimed in arrears and are often difficult to claim because of staffing cuts in the section of the DHSS that deals with social security benefits. I have often come across cases of people who have been unable to get to hospital with that kind of assistance because they simply could not claim the money to get there.

Mrs. Currie: I can equally well think of a number of cases, particularly of constituents of mine who have had to travel to London for specialist treatment, who have found it tolerably easy to claim and who have become aware of how to do so through my advice and assistance. It is available and it is part of our job to see that people are made aware of it.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Lady speaks of her constituents. What about others?

Mrs. Currie: I see what the hon. Gentleman means. I remind him that my majority went up at the last election.
The Rayner scrutiny, to which reference has been made, on non-emergency ambulance services, which we published in March 1984, indicated some inefficiencies, and particularly the lack of any link between controlling the demand for transport and its cost. The scrutiny proposed no change in the basic criteria for ordering ambulance transport, and that remains the position. The responsibility lies with the clinician in charge of each case to request transport for those patients who need it. The ambulance service must then provide the most appropriate form of transport.
It has always been open to ambulance services to use taxis, hire cars or private contractors where it is cost effective to do so and where it is in the patient's interest. That did not just start in 1984. The scrutiny report underlined that and reminded us of it. It encouraged a more flexible approach to solving transport problems. That means that health authorities are indeed considering the benefits of using private sector vehicles and the voluntary sector where that would best serve patients' interests. Although that trend is increasing, as the hon. Member for Islington, North rightly said, it is not new arid has always been an option that has been used by health authorities around the country.
Private contract or volunteer car driver arrangements can be better for patients in rural areas, and when used appropriately can reduce Health Service costs. I honestly cannot see what is wrong with that. I know that the hon.


Member for Islington, North used the word "horror". His approach to this matter is quite ludicrous, and I suspect that the reason he does not like it is that it is a privatised service and therefore not accessible to his comrades in the National Union of Public Employees.

Mr. Corbyn: If I may say so, that is an extremely unfair way of dealing with a very serious concern. Many people are worried that well-meaning, but totally unqualified and inexperienced people are taking patients around and that they are unable to cope with an emergency, which might occur while the patients are in the car. It is not the sane, sensible or safe way to take hospital patients around. It is a cut, because it is the ambulance service, not various oddbod volunteers, that should take those people around.

Mrs. Currie: I merely point out that in the west country, where there is a proposal to remove the service, people are up in arms about it. They have no worries about whether the driver can respond in an emergency.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, I do not have much time and I listened to the hon. Lady for 27 minutes in the previous debate and I have not finished what I want to say.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has yet to reply to me.

Mrs. Currie: Quite right.
The hon. Member for Islington, North also raised the question of the GLC. I know that Opposition Members would love to see the return of a body like the GLC. Heaven help us. I cannot imagine anything worse. The GLC is dead. Like Mr. Cleese's parrot, it is an ex-GLC. It no longer exists.
At the moment the London ambulance service is managed by the South West Thames regional health authority on behalf of all the Thames regions within the Greater London area. The area is very extensive, the service is the largest in the world, and the health services are concentrated more there than in any other part of the country. Under the management of South West Thames, the London ambulance service has a headquarters and a number of districts from which the day-to-day operation of the service is organised.
With such extensive cross-boundary flows of patients, several of which have been accurately described tonight, between the various district health authorities I cannot see how the present organisation can be further streamlined. Given the hassle which the whole system has undergone in the past year or so, it would prefer a period of quiescence to ensure that the service can be delivered.
I am given to understand, and I believe, that the London ambulance service is now meeting all the demands for non-emergency ambulances that are legitimately being made upon it. There have been steady improvements in the level of service since the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly began to raise the issue. The management of the London ambulance service is not yet satisfied that a compeletely satisfactory quality of service is being provided everywhere. We are always concerned if patients are experiencing delays in reaching appointments or have to wait before being returned home. The problem varies in size from division to division in London. I understand that the north-east division, which covers the constituency of Newham, South, is receiving a very good service.
Steps are now being taken to improve the quality of service everywhere by continuing to recruit part-time staff who will start work at 8 am to ensure that patients are delivered in time for their hospital appointments, and work late into the evening so that patients can be certain of being returned home. Part-timers are being used to provide much greater flexibility in the use of manpower.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned ORCON. I am afraid that he will get the same answer as he has had before—that his constituents get an average 10-minute service. The responses are better this year than they were last year, and we hope to see further improvement. My constituents have to wait much longer for their service and travel much further than anybody in London.
Where the London ambulance service knows that delays are occurring, it is discussing means of overcoming those problems with the hospitals concerned. Extension of the use of the hospital car service is one way in which this is being done. Another is an experiment at the Charing Cross hospital, where a taxi has been provided to act as a sweeper to take four or five patients home if an ambulance would not be available immediately to transport them. I take the point that their journey may be slightly delayed, but they may prefer to be in the taxi and on their way home to having to wait for an ambulance which may have been diverted to deal with an emergency.
The London ambulance service is the biggest in the world. Each of the four divisions that make it up is bigger than most ambulance services in the country, even those covering other metropolitan areas. It is a huge management task, and I have no doubt that if one hunted long enough and ferreted around one could provide problems and difficulties in individual cases.

Ms. Harman: They come into our surgeries.

Mrs. Currie: I am sure they do, but with 5 million emergency 999 patients and 21 million non-emergency journeys per year I am not in the least surprised that some are not satisfactory.
The LAS is taking some measures to improve quality and cut down the inconvenience caused by late arrivals and waiting times. When Opposition Members have genuine specific complaints they wish to raise, I should be more than happy to have them investigated. The hon. Member for Newham, South knows that we investigate all complaints, although it is disappointing that when we investigated some points raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in August of this year we found that they were two years old and had long been investigated and dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about defibrillators. I had the privilege of watching the London ambulance service staff being trained to use them. They are used to treat patients whose heart may have stopped. My only criticism of the London ambulance service is that when we were standing around discussing health care afterwards, it turned out that every ambulance man who was being trained to look after heart patients was a smoker, and so was quite likely to need the services of his colleagues if he carried on smoking and suffered heart disease.

Mr. Corbyn: It is the tension of the job.

Mrs. Currie: All the more reason for not smoking.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The high-profile ambulance service is always the object of complaint, rather than the praise that it rightly deserves. The service depends so much on the men and women who staff the ambulances, and I am glad to take the opportunity to recognise the outstanding contribution that they make to the provision of health services.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Lady realise that the complaints have been, not against the ambulance service and the dedicated personnel, but against the Government who do not give the ambulance services enough resources? Will she now say why she disagrees, if she does, with the formula that I suggested at the end of my speech, that the service must be demand-led, be based on the orcon standards, that there must be an arithmetical calculation of what is required, and the Government must provide the money, vehicles and equipment to meet those standards?

Mrs. Currie: I would have thought that providing more staff and a pay rise was a fair start in that general direction. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and he has had his reply to it on many occasions. I have nothing to add tonight.

Glasgow-Dumfries-Carlisle Railway Line

Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who is responsible for railways, for being here to listen to and answer the debate. He was kind enough to receive a delegation from Dumfries and Galloway regional council, and an all-party delegation arranged by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who has been prominent in seeking changes to the proposals from British Rail. The proposals are the most serious changes in British Rail policy for south-west Scotland since the Beeching changes in the 1960s when the Dumfries-Stranraer direct route was closed. Throughout south-west Scotland there is widespread fear that the proposals presently before the public herald a further rundown in services, leading eventually to the closure of lines.
South-west Scotland covers part of Strathclyde and represents the whole of Dumfries and Galloway, and it is a significant area of Scotland. We cannot believe that the Government will allow BR to denude such a large area of a good train service. It will certainly have a damaging effect upon the economy and it is contrary to the Government's laudable efforts to build up that economy. The line runs directly through those areas of Scotland with the highest unemployment rates—Cumnock, Kirkconnel and Sanquhar.
The proposals will have serious repercussions on the travelling public, on tourists—we should remember the enormous investment in Butlins at Ayr— and on freight. In May 1988 BR proposes that there will be no sleeper service on the line. It will withdraw the Glasgow-Kilmarnock-Dumfries-Carlisle sleeper entirely and divert the Stranraer-London sleeper via Glasgow and the west coast main line service to Carlisle. It will withdraw the through train service from Stranraer to London via the Nith valley line and withdraw the sleeper service from Lockerbie on the Glasgow-London service.
I am a great commuter, and there is no greater supporter in this House than me for travelling by rail—I have little alternative. I am aware that restrictions will be placed on my travelling and on people travelling in the south-west of Scotland if the proposed changes are made.
If there are no through trains on the Nith valley line, everyone who wants to go south will have to change at Carlisle. That will involve all the problems of luggage, of the disabled getting in and out of trains and, of course, of getting on trains that are overcrowded on the main Glasgow-London service. I know that BR says that people can catch a local train and then get a sleeper at Carlisle, but that sleeper is frequently full on Sunday nights when, more often than not, I travel to London. I do not see how the additional passengers can be carried on Sunday nights. Indeed, during the day the London trains are grossly overcrowded.
Inevitably all the problems will drive train passengers to travel either by bus to London or certainly by car to Carlisle. That will result in a further depression in the number of passengers who will use what will then become a provincial route from Kilmarnock to Carlisle. That will add to the statistics that will enable BR to close the line entirely.
All this is inexplicable. Dumfries has just won the award for the best station in the United Kingdom. We


welcome the investment that has been made in improving that station. Indeed, Stranraer and Locherbie have also been improved. There are splendid staff at all the stations in south-west Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will discuss the line further north if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The National Union of Railwaymen has put in an immense amount of work through that great character, John Flanigan, who works so effectively in the Dumfries area. Its reward has been to see a definite reduction in services. That reduction has been taking place steadily and now it has reached the point where it can go no further. British Rail promised us that if the NUR and the region accepted the single tracking of the line it would be profitable and economic to run the line in future. We agreed to that; now we are to be let down. British Rail promised that there would be a new signals system, which would mean the loss of many jobs but, again, would help profitability. We accepted that, and again we are being let down. We were promised that Annan station would be upgraded, and that it would be manned. We have been able to prove that there is a rising income at the station. The promise was made as recently as May, but the station is now unmanned.
An unmanned station in the middle of the night is a pretty daunting affair, especially for a lady passenger waiting for a train. The station is a long way away from other residences, and has no telephone. It is impossible to know whether a train is 10 minutes or two hours late, and 1 would not recommend standing there alone in the middle of the night to any passenger.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman know offhand what the unemployment rate is in Annan? Is it not ludicrous that Annan station, like many others, should be unmanned when many people in such areas would be only too grateful for a job there?

Sir Hector Monro: Indeed. It was very sad when those two men lost their jobs, or were moved elsewhere, when the station was unmanned in October. The hon. Gentleman is right: unemployment is relatively high in Annan, particularly male unemployment. That economic argument is another reason why it is so sad to see such things happening.
We were also promised when Lockerbie station was improved that there would be no rundown in the service. That was as recently as February of this year. Now it has lost its sleepers. What can we believe? We are told that Sprinters will be the answer—local trains and, of course, constant changing at Carlisle. The Sprinters have not yet been built; I have shown my hon. Friend the Minister a press cutting which says that they may not be available until 1989. In any case, they are no substitute for the through inter-city trains that we are about to lose.
Members of Parliament from all parties — including two Ministers and Members from Northern Ireland — regional, district and community councils, the Enterprise Trust and the business community all believe that the loss of the present services will have a serious impact on southwest Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister really must believe that the weight of evidence is of great significance, and should be accepted.
A big public meeting in Kilmarnock was arranged by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who took

the chair. It was very successful, and a number of speakers from all walks of life highlighted the importance of the line. They spoke from experience, which they seemed to possess in far greater depth than those who spoke on behalf of British Rail.
We have also had meetings with British Rail in Dumfries and Galloway, organised by the Regional council and supported by the District councils. There was unanimity of a strength that I have never encountered before in the whole of south-west Scotland on the view that British Rail's changes were going too far, and must not be implemented next summer.
Of course, we realise the Government's objectives. We wish British Rail to be profitable, and we accept the implications of the public service obligation grant. We also accept that the Government do not wish to be involved in the day-to-day running of the railway: indeed, that would be impossible. However, what we are discussing is not day-to-day running of the railway, but a major change in policy. An inter-city route with sleeper services has become a provincial service, with changing at Carlisle. There are grave possibilities concerning the future impact on the economy of south-west Scotland.
The Government must involve themselves; they must be interested in how the taxpayers' money is to be spent and what British Rail's priorities are for south-west Scotland, because the repercussions are contrary to the Government's industrial development policy. We will certainly face a reduction in investment from outwith the region. We will see a reduction in the ability of local firms to compete with other firms elsewhere, because we will not have an effective rail service. We will certainly see a reduction in tourist income — I have spoken about Butlins at Ayr—and there will be a further undermining of the economic situation at Cumnock and Sanquhar.
Strathclyde region and Dumfries and Galloway region have played an important part in trying to sustain the railway system in south-west Scotland. They have helped in many ways, through rail cards and publicity campaigns. But this local effort should be matched by a real marketing drive by British Rail; it should concentrate on this for two years and only then contemplate changing the service if its promotion efforts have not added greatly to revenue. I have grave doubts—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—about the statistics that are thrown at us by British Rail on the number of passengers. Certainly they seem far fewer in number than I note with my own eyes as I travel by day and by night.
Investment in British Rail elsewhere is at a very high level. I noticed only recently that there was to be £383 million for London commuters. Just a morsel of that would be of tremendous value to south-west Scotland in making the system more efficient, effective and profitable. We are concerned that all the efforts of British Rail will in the end drive the trains on to the east coast route and make the whole of the west coast route provincial.
British Rail should not live in an ivory tower. It has its part to play in running the nation. It has a duty to serve us and to improve the quality of its trains. If it fails, it must be the Government's duty to take steps to rectify the decisions of British Rail. To whom else can the public turn, except to the Government, to correct those decisions by British Rail that are contrary to the interests of the people who live in south-west Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: East coasters, of whom I am one, view this matter with considerable concern because, as I hope to argue briefly, either the Edinburgh-Linlithgow-Glasgow line or the Edinburgh-Falkirk-Shotts-Glasgow line will have to be electrified to take the through trains from King's Cross. That means that our local services, if the London trains are late, are thrown into chaos. Speaking for the Linlithgow commuters and for the people in Fauldhouse and Shotts, I view this with the greatest concern. We want the west coast route.

Sir Hector Monro: I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point: if the electric trains stopped at Waverley life would be very difficult for his constituents in central Scotland. I wonder whether British Rail has thought it through and realised in what direction it is going.
We have no air service. We have to rely on rail for long-distance travel. Although the local road service is improving all the time, that does not help us with day-in and day-out travel to and from the south. We feel that we are being badly let down by British Rail. I ask the Minister to explain to British Rail that major areas of Britain such as south-west Scotland cannot be thrown on the scrap heap when it comes to inter-city services. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging response and tell us that he will at least highlight our concern to British Rail itself.

Mr. Willian McKelvey: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for being lucky enough in the ballot to give us the opportunity to debate a very important issue for all of us in Scotland, not just for those who use the west coast line, and for many of the kind things that he has said about me in the debate, inasmuch as we have managed to work together for a common cause. I do not want this to be a mutual back-slapping debate, but the respect of the people of Ayrshire for the hon. Member for Dumfries in his fight to retain this train service is considerable, and is probably equalled only by the admiration of his constituents for the manner in which he has carried out his duties in this regard.
I shall not bore the House with all the details, but it is necessary to give a brief history of the matter. It came about in a most appalling fashion. I received a quite cryptic letter on 24 August, advising me that intercity would be axing overnight services from Glasgow via Kilmarnock, Dumfries and Carlisle to London.
It is necessary to chronicle the loss that was envisaged. The 22.15 nightrider, which was an all-week train, was to be rerouted; the 22.25 Paddy, which is commonly used on this line and is routed from Stranraer through Kilmarnock and Dumfries to the south and which ran for six days a week in the winter and seven days a week in the summer, was to be rerouted; the 10.55 Paddy, which was a six days a week train, was to be withdrawn completely; the 21.05 Paddy from London to Stranraer, which ran for six days in the winter and seven days in the summer, was to be rerouted; and the 23.00 nightrider from London Euston through Kilmarnock to Glasgow, which again ran for six days a week in the winter and seven days in the summer, was to he rerouted.
The letter arrived out of the blue; there had been no consultation whatsoever with any of the areas concerned,

the trade unions or any of the regional or district councils. In an area spanning several hundreds of miles, not one single thought had been given to the effects of these cuts on the socio-economic aspects of the area. That led us to believe that these decisions, affecting large areas of Scotland were being made in London.
The travelling public, and the people who represent them at any level, were not to be consulted. I passed the information directly on to the Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council because I was appalled at what has been intimated in the letter. To its credit, the council called an emergency meeting of district and regional councils and interested bodies in the area. Incredibly — the meeting was called at short notice—we had a maximum turnout of the people involved. We unanimously condemned the manner in which this information had been given, and everyone was appalled by the prospect of losing these services.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I assure Scottish hon. Members that we in Northern Ireland would have been represented at that meeting, but, because of the short notice, it was not possible to attend. Nevertheless, we view with concern the threat to our economy in the diminution of services. Great efforts have been made recently by the Northern Ireland tourist board to attract visitors. Now that there is some improvement in the overall security and a better image of the Province is being projected, it is regrettable that there is a diminution in real services in Scotland and that inconvenience will he caused to those wishing to travel through to Stranraer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there could be a threat to our rail services from Lame to Belfast if we lose further travellers who would have used the through train?

Mr. McKelvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall be mentioning the positive part that other hon. Members have played in making representations to British Rail.
One thing is certain: all district councils were in agreement—a feat in itself—as were different political parties in condemning the way in which we were being treated. Parliamentarians united in their opposition to the proposed cuts and a meeting was held in the House, to which we invited Mr. J. R. Ellis, the general manager of ScotRail. On that occasion the hon. Member for Dumfries and I were supported by colleagues and friends from the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). To unite that group in one cause is even more spectacular than uniting the Ayrshire and Galloway districts in a common cause.
We went on to hold a public meeting in Kilmarnock. That was attended in large number by all the councils, authorities, churches, anyone who had any responsibility for representing people, and the people themselves. There were representatives from across the entire Ayrshire, Galloway and Dumfries geographical area. I chaired that meeting, which included as a speaker the hon. Member for Dumfries. He received a rapturous welcome in what might be called a Labour stronghold. The meeting was attended by Jimmy Knapp, the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. He felt so moved by what we had


told him that he was determined to be there. From an overseas trip he came directly up to Kilmarnock on a flight —there was not a train available to get him there on time—so that he could present the views of the NUR.
After the speeches, the general manager of ScotRail was presented with a petition. That petition called for the cancellation of proposals that would reduce rail services to Kilmarnock, the Nith Valley and Dumfries and Galloway and provide the opposite; that is, to enhance services for all of those areas to meet social need and assist in the development of tourism and employment opportunities in the future. That point has already been mentioned. We were able to say that the petitions had been signed by 4,500 people. It had been put together in less than 10 days. A total of 1,581 signatories were from Kilmarnock and Loudoun, 97 from a neighbouring constituency and 2,825 from Dumfries and Galloway. Names were still being added to the petition and it was to be forwarded to British Rail. Public feeling was very strong on the matter about the way in which we had been treated.
On Monday of this week, accompanied by two councillors from Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council, John Blaney and Gus Steele, a group of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dumfries and my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, met the Minister of State to tell him what was happening. We felt that the Government ought to bear some responsibility for the attitude of BR, or at least to be made aware of its attitude, which was that we should not complain to BR because it was merely carrying out Government policy to make the line profitable.
One of the problems is that the Minister gave us figures, which he had been given by BR, which we could not believe. BR said that about two passengers were using the line each day. I took the opportunity to check what happened the previous day — Sunday. With the assistance of the union and BR, I discovered that between 16 and 20 passengers used the service to Kilmarnock alone. I know some of them, and I shall give the Minister their names in case he wants to check. There was Stewart Boyd, a regular traveller because he commutes to work in London, John Moffat, John Blaney, Gus Steele and several others — they know them but I do not — who could be named if an investigation was necessary. The train uplifted another 20 passengers between Kilmarnock and Annan.
The stations are unmanned, which presents a difficulty for some people who want to use the service. It is not possible, for example, to go to an unmanned station and get a sleeper ticket to the south from a machine. People who want to do that have to go to a travel agent, who will book the ticket through Glasgow, so the sale appears on the Glasgow figures, not the unmanned Annan station.
Some £380 was derived from those who made the short journey from Kilmarnock to Annan. Such a sum is not to be sneezed at, and it is additional to the fares that were paid through travel agencies. To compound the mystery of the missing travellers, Councillors Jim Mills and John Blaney, who were coming down to London on Thursday for a meeting with Dr. John Prideaux, the manager responsible for intercity services, managed to get a sleeper down, but could not get a sleeper back. Believe it or not,

the sleeper compartments headed for Kilmarnock are sold out. BR says that the route is unprofitable, but people who want to travel on it cannot get a sleeper because all the places are sold. It just does not add up.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the sleeper is full of people wanting destinations on the Nith line or Glasgow? BR's proposed alternative service would cover the second point.

Mr. McKelvey: I cannot tell the Minister, nor can BR, where those people will alight. I know, however, that two passengers wish to alight at Kilmarnock and will not be able to do so because there is no room for them on the train. However the sleepers are booked and, whoever books them, it is evident that if I could not get on the train to Galloway, there would be no way that I could get to Annan. Even the Glasgow sleeper was full, so that evening none of the sleepers was available to get our two colleagues back to the north. They had to travel by plane in the afternoon, something that they did not want to do because they are not particularly keen on flying. Again, the opportunity of travelling by rail had been denied them.
That is part of the argument that we are using with British Rail. It has simply looked at book figures and told the Minister that only two passengers were on the train. I can understand why in that case it became unprofitable to run that line, but the figures are not correct. If the matter is looked at in that way, British Rail will be slashing lines and services the length and breadth of the land, even more than it is doing at present.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries will be happy to hear that one positive thing to emerge from this is that there has been an increased interest in services since the campaign started. The key factor is that British Rail does not advertise the services. In fact, it carries out negative advertising, hoping that people will not use the services so that the figures will show that no one is using the services that it is providing. British Rail should be marketing its services vigorously so that profitability can be achieved much more readily than at present.
We do not want the routes to be selected directly on the basis of the figures supplied by British Rail. If that were the case, the district and regional councils might have to promote some kind of survey to get the real figures, and they might have to bill British Rail if it is not prepared to carry out such a survey on our behalf.
The results that are deliberately brought about by the policies of sustained neglect on behalf of British Rail must be overturned by figures which show the true and honest position of the travellers. We are looking not for a decreased service in an area that has suffered serious economic blows in the recent past, but the reverse. We want the services, in an area that is crying out for them, to be increased and enhanced. If British Rail pushes forward in that direction, it will have all the Members of Parliament, all the elected representatives and all the public in that area on its side, united in the one cause.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One cannot go to an unmanned station and ask for a sleeper ticket".
I commend the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) to The Observer and other such places which run "sayings of the week." My


hon. Friend is one of the genuinely witty Members of the House and this is a case for all his powers of ribaldry in a good cause. If I went, proverbially, tiger shooting in the cause of a railway, there is no one whom I would rather have with me than my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Let me tell him and the Conservative party a salutary little tale. In 1958–59 I was the Labour candidate for the Borders. I received 10,000 votes, and I remember it vividly because that was the time of the threatened closure of the railway at Hawick, Galashiels, Melrose, St. Boswells and Newcastleton. It was "Beechingised."
The result of all that was a Liberal candidate unexpectedly winning a by-election and the humiliation of a new Conservative candidate, the late Commander C.E.M. Donaldson, my opponent in 1959 having had a sizeable safe majority. That was a blue-chip Conservative seat, but once the railway was taken away it was transformed into a Liberal seat. The Liberal candidate, now the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, was the beneficiary of the removal of that railway.
I am not in the business of defending Conservative seats, but I gently remind the Minister that if these plans go ahead, one result will be that the hon. Member for Dumfries or his successor, will not win at the next election. Certainly the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) will lose his seat. There is thus a political calculation to be taken into account. I hope that that will strengthen the Minister's hand when he points out these issues to those who run the Conservative party.
Neither the French nor the Gemans would dream of closing such a railway in any part of their country that was in any way comparable to Dumfries. Among the European nations, only the British would even contemplate doing such a thing.
In any case, I am not a Member of Parliament for the west of Scotland although I do have a strong locus. I should explain to the House that I have the good fortune to have been sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen for 10 years. Although not a penny comes to me personally, I believe that union sponsorship should be declared. I also declare an interest from the point of view of my constituency. On 3 November 1986 I asked the then Secretary of State for Transport whether he was
aware of the great increase in traffic at the stations of Linlithgow, Polmont and Falkirk High and the success of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line in recent months? In those circumstances, is he sure that an added electrification route from King's Cross to Edinburgh and then on to Glasgow will not damage the successful traffic between Edinburgh and Glasgow? This is very important to my constituents.
The then Secretary of State for Transport, the present Secretary of State for Social Services, answered:
I always consider the hon. Gentleman's detailed comments carefully. I am not aware of the precise details about increases in traffic, but I shall consider the matter.
To be fair to him, the right hon. Gentleman told me outside that he would consider the matter seriously. He added:
I do not imagine, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said denies the high quality investment which most people regard as of great benefit to the east coast line."—[Official Report, 3 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 671.]

To that I say amen. Investment in the east coast line is undoubtedly important. I believe that the Secretary of State for Transport did consider those matters.
On 6 April 1987 I asked what information Ministers had
as to when British Rail expects to complete its assessment of the case for investment in the east coast route King's Cross-Edinburgh, and onward routes to Glasgow.
I should say that I have a high regard for the Minister because I believe, as do many in the NUR, that he has a genuine interest in railways. I do not say that to flatter him, but because we believe that it is true. He replied:
East coast mainline electrification was approved in 1984 and it is expected that the scheme will be completed on schedule in May 1991. BR is still at an early stage of assessing whether there is a case for electrifying any further route from Edinburgh to Glasgow.
I should say that 1991 is not far away.
I followed up with a supplementary question:
Before any conclusions are reached on the matter, could there be some opportunity for public discussion as to whether to electrify the Fauldhouse-Shotts route, or the Linlithgow-Polmont-Falkirk route? Are there not grave implications., one way or the other, for local services, which could be disrupted by long distance London-Glasgow traffic via Edinburgh?
The Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly fair point—one which should certainly be considered. At the moment no proposals have been received from British Rail by Ministers, so we are not yet in a position to give the further examination that is needed."—[Official Report, 6 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 8.]
Your parliamentary neighbour, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who is now chairman of the NUR group and who has personal experience of the railways, has told me of the great difficulties on the Coventry-Birmingham line. If ever a train is late, local Coventry-Birmingham traffic is thrown into difficulty. Just imagine a long-distance route, on which there can be delays. If a long-distance London to Glasgow train were delayed, what would happen to commuter services between Edinburgh and Glasgow?
I speak as someone with both a constituency and a personal interest. There is nothing like a personal interest to goad Members of Parliament after a long night's sitting. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries about his sleeper. I also have a personal interest. I frequently use the Linlithgow-Edinburgh and Linlithgow-Glasgow railway line. If there are constant changes because of the need for through trains, what will happen? My questions are perfectly fair. I ask them on behalf of my constituents rather than for myself. As yet, there has been no answer.
Until an answer to this part of the jigsaw is forthcoming, for heaven's sake do not let us talk about closing down any west coast line or altering west coast services. Even though British Rail engineers say that an hour will be saved by routeing London to Glasgow traffic through Edinburgh, that is not necessarily an overall satisfactory consideration. I shall leave that point, because the Minister must have time to answer. Until there is a decision on electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, the Government should go no further with BR, in tampering with west coast considerations.
The debate also relates to the Settle-Carlisle railway line. On 20 December 1984, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport
if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway line.


We have the great advantage of a Minister being in post for many years, rather than flitting from one post to another. The Minister said:
British Rail has published a proposal to withdraw passenger services from this line. The proposal is being dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid down by Parliament. Objections from users will, therefore, be considered by the appropriate transport users consultative committees, which will report to my right hon. Friend on any hardship they consider withdrawal would cause. My right hon. Friend will then decide whether to give his consent to the proposal, having regard to all the relevant factors, including social and economic considerations."—[Official Report, 20 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 277.]
I mentioned December 1984 because a great deal of water has passed under the bridge—perhaps I should say the viaduct—since then. It reinforces the view that it is a long saga. It has gained momentum. It is fascinating to see how those who have worked so hard on the Settle-Carlisle railway have had a great influence on national public opinion.
On 30 July 1984 I referred to the Ribblehead viaduct. I asked whether the line qualified for heritage funds, and the Minister replied:
The eligibility of projects for heritage funds is a matter for the organisations which control them. I have control over none of these bodies.
I then asked:
Is the Ribblehead viaduct any less of a monument to its age than, for example, Chatsworth? Will we simply allow it to crumble? This is quite apart from the value of the diversionary line from Scotland to England, which, presumably, will be more important if there is to be the east coast electrification?
The Minister replied:
It will be for British Rail to consider making an application at the appropriate time, when it knows the future of the Ribblehead viaduct, which is tied up with the decision —not yet taken—on the future of the Settle-Carlisle line. What the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely reasonable and proper, but must be set in the context that there are eight listed or scheduled viaducts on that line."—[Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 10.]
What is the present thinking on the heritage aspects of the Settle-Carlisle viaduct?
On 21 April 1986 I ask the Secretary of State for Transport again about the Settle-Carlisle railway line:
Is it not a fact that 80 per cent. of the work that needs to be done is in employment and less than 20 per cent. in materials? What are the real costs, in view of the numbers that would then be employed? Does that not put the preservation of the Ribblehead and other viaducts in a different light?
The Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman has drawn an interesting point to our attention. However, Ministers will have to consider the proposals for closure in a quasi-judicial capacity. It would be quite wrong today for me to give an indication of my view of the hon. Gentleman's point."—[Official Report, 21 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 1.]
What is the present thinking on the heritage aspects of the Settle-Carlisle line? I returned to the subject on 12 December 1986, when the Minister said at column 273 of Hansard that he could not make a statement because he had not seen the report of the transport users consultative committee, which was due on 17 December. There is a history to the matter, and this is an opportunity for the Minister to bring us up to date on the heritage and other aspects of the Settle-Carlisle line. We wish to allow the Minister time to reply, and I thank the House for hearing me.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on raising this subject. It is splendidly appropriate that the House should be debating sleepers at this stage of our annual exercise in parliamentary insomnia, and I was reflecting on that as I made my way to the House at half-past five this morning.
The fact will not have been lost on the Minister that this is the second time in the past fortnight that he has been hauled to the Dispatch Box to answer for British Rail's efforts to sabotage some of its services to and from the south of Scotland. I hope that the Minister is getting the message, which has come now from the south-east of Scotland, as well as from the south-west of Scotland and from Northern Ireland, and has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that he will use the influence that he certainly has to do something about the British Rail proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has spoken eloquently on behalf of his constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and other hon. Members from Ayrshire have made strong representations about British Rail's proposals as they affect their constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has quoted some relevant evidence that he has collected from various sources about the real level of use of the service on the Glasgow-Kilmarnock-Dumfries-Carlisle railway line. He has also highlighted an apparently disturbing failure by British Rail to consult local communities about its proposals to alter the services on that line.
I must say that I find it difficult to understand the attitude of British Rail towards its potentially excellent sleeper services. The new sleeper coaches are of a high standard of comfort and safety. The facilities for comfortable and reliable overnight travel should be an attractive alternative to the vagaries of air travel within the United Kingdom nowadays. Indeed, it is worth referring to a very effective advertising campaign that British Rail ran last year, or the year before, in which it compared the comfort and convenience of sleeper travel with the hassle discomfort and uncertainty of domestic air services. Sadly, it is becoming clear that British Rail wants to pick up sleeper passengers only at the major centres, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Carlisle, and that anyone from intermediate stations will have to whistle.
Sleeper services have great potential, but on both the east and west coasts British Rail seems hell-bent on sabotaging that part of its business by deterring potential customers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun complained about the lack of information and poor advertising of the rail services in his part of the country. In some of these areas, the sleeper service could appropriately be described as the secret service. One cannot understand why British Rail is trying to sabotage its service in this way, unless it wants to do away with it on those lines. In that case, it ought to be answerable to the Minister and to the House.
I suspect that this factor is not unconnected with the financial constraints imposed on British Rail by the Government. The impression given is that the service is run by accountants rather than by railway men, and by


London accountants at that, which is certainly a disturbing consideration for us in Scotland. This slide-rule approach to what should be a national service, compounded by the factual errors that were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, means that passengers will have to travel to mainline centres to catch Inter City trains—or lump it.
On the east coast — we discussed this with the Minister earlier—my constituents and people from the north-east of England will have to travel all the way up to Edinburgh to connect with overnight trains to London. We now discover that, on the west coast, people from Ayrshire will have to travel to Glasgow to obtain services to London, and people from Dumfries and Galloway will have to travel to Carlisle to catch such services.
Inevitably, in circumstances such as these, local communities will lose out. They will be deprived of access to services which are convenient for holiday-makers and visitors going in both directions and provide essential lines of communication to business men, professionals and administrators who need convenient access to London in this extremely centralised United Kingdom. Without good transport facilities, such people will find it impossible to go on living in the rural communities of south-west Scotland. The economy will be affected if such people find it necessary to move away. People in Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire who will be bypassed will lose out; but British Rail will lose out, too, as a result of this cut in its services. It will deprive itself of the possibility of picking up a significant and potentially growing number of passengers at the intermediate stations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow rightly compared the situation with what happened on the Waverley line between Edinburgh and Carlisle many years ago. British Railways, as it was then known, attributed all the costs to the running of that line, including even a share of the running costs of Waverley station, without taking into account the fact that it provided an essential feeder service for its other main line services. British Rail has cut its own throat by doing away with that service. It has been harmful to the Border communities, which have lost their railway service, and to British Rail. I know for certain, because my wife unwillingly spent a long time there last Saturday, that Waverley station is still there, with its associated costs. What is missing, because of the Waverley line closure, is the revenue that could have come in from passengers in the Border area.
It is time that British Rail started to learn from this type of experience. It is cutting off its own life-blood by cutting off access to potential customers in these areas. The Minister can quote figures, but if my experience on the east coast is anything to go by, the position has been aggravated by poor information, lack of consultation and unsatisfactory or wildly fluctuating timetables.
I hope that the Minister will re-examine the issue and apply pressure to British Rail. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I am a strong supporter of the railways. He is sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, and I am sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. I believe strongly in the principle of the railway service. It has tremendous potential. It is valuable that BR is investing in electrification and other improvements, but it is sad that other, locally-based aspects of the service are now under threat. That could be bad for the long-term good of the railway service. I am alarmed by the damaging impact of

Government financial constraints on this vital part of our national transport network. I support the efforts of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Dumfries to protect railway services in their parts of the country, and I certainly hope that the Minister's response will be positive.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made some significant points in this debate. I fully appreciate that British Rail's decision presents difficulties to those hon. Members and to others who regularly use the line. I can understand why they feel bitter about the handling of British Rail's decision.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke about the inadequacy of consultation. I shall draw that to the attention of the chairman of British Rail. As hon. Members will appreciate, this decision was taken by British Rail and not by Ministers. British Rail did not consult me or my right hon. Friend, because we have no role in decisions of this kind. British Rail runs the railways and it is for British Rail to take and explain the hard decisions.
I fully appreciate the point that hon. Members made about the need for an explanation. I can only suggest that the hon. Members concerned take up these points directly with the British Railways Board. I understand that they are shortly to meet Dr. Prideaux, the sector director for intercity. They may also want to meet the sector director for provincial services, particularly in connection with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about when the proposed Sprinter services will be introduced on this line.
It may help the House if I explain the background to British Rail's decision, and the relationship between Government and the British Railways Board. For many years it has been the policy of successive Governments that interurban long distance services should not be subsidised. This policy was first set out by the last Labour Government in their transport policy White Paper of 1977, which said quite plainly:
There is no case for subsidising inter-urban services.
It is in pursuit of that policy, with which the Government agree, that we have told British Rail that its intercity sector will not be eligible for public sector obligation grant after the end of this financial year. We have set all British Rail's commercial businesses the combined objective of making a 2·7 per cent. return as a current cost operating profit on net assets before interest by 1989–90. The Government are well aware that this represents a tough target for British Rail, but it is not an impossible one and has been accepted by the chairman.
The intercity sector's performance has improved considerably and more improvements are forecast. Investment in major schemes, such as the electrification of the east coast main line, will obviously help. We believe that in the long term there will be significant improvements. British Rail will have greater freedom to manage its business and will have even more incentive to offer its customers an attractive service at an attractive price. That is how British Rail will succeed in the market place. It is in this context that British Rail has examined


its intercity services to see where the level of service does not correspond to customer demand and where, as a result, the cost of providing a service is not met by fares.
One of the conclusions it has reached is that some of the existing sleeper services cannot be justified. The position of the service along the east coast main line from towns and cities in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear and Durham was debated in the House a few days ago. The other is the Nith valley line, which runs from Carlisle to Glasgow through Dumfries and Kilmarnock to the west of but not quite paralleling the west coast main line. However, at the same time as it is withdrawing these trains, British Rail is introducing four new sleeper services that will link major centres of population in Scotland, the west midlands and the south coast of England. Therefore, improvements are being made and sleeper services are being tailored to meet market demand.
Hon. Members must recognise that anybody providing a service where the market is changing ought to meet increasing demand by providing additional services. The other side of that coin are the reductions where there is an inadequate number of customers to warrant providing similar services.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the whole problem of the Glasgow-Edinburgh electrification and the overcrowding on that increasingly used line been taken into account in this jigsaw?

Mr. Mitchell: That aspect of that line did not appear in the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in raising the matter of the Nith line, so I do not have the information the hon. Gentleman seeks. But I will write to him with the information as soon as possible.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has confirmed that it is the intention of BR to continue running sleeper services between the main centres. The hon. Member for Dumfries pointed out that many communities along the length of that line would like access to those services. The Minister has explained that the services will be there but will take a slightly different route. Why is BR so hostile to the idea of picking up passengers at intermediate stations on services which it will continue to provide?

Mr. Mitchell: I will explain the position, and the hon. Gentleman may want me to give some detailed information when I come to the question of the costs of operating this service in parallel with the west coast main line service for sleepers.
There are just three intercity trains in each direction along the Nith valley line each weekday. One, the sleeper between Stranraer and London, calls at intermediate stations along the line in the small hours of the morning and is hardly ever used by passengers at these stations. The stops are principally for parcels, including the mail.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) expressed concern on behalf of travellers from Belfast, and particularly those who go through the main town in his constituency, Larne—I am personally familiar with the port there. This service will be re-routed via Glasgow but the passengers are unlikely to notice the difference as they will of course be asleep.
The second intercity service is one of the sleeper trains between Glasgow and London which is routed down the

Nith valley. Most of the passengers on it travel to and from Glasgow. According to BR's records, at the latest count, in October, there were an average of 10 sleeper passengers, or five at two particular spots. I must admit to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who came to see me with a deputation, as did the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, that I referred at that time to an average of two passengers. I now discover that that was a survey carried out by BR during August, and some may think that a slightly eccentric time to carry out a survey. The October survey, which I think hon. Members will accept as being a realistic time to carry out a survey, showed that there were 10 sleeper passengers.
Subsequent to my meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun yesterday, I discovered that there were 24 seated passengers a night—not sleepers but seated passengers—who joined the train at intermediate stations on the Nith valley line on the south-bound journey. On the northbound journey, when the train stops at Dumfries at 5·03 am and at Kilmarnock at 6·30 am the figures were much lower. I understand that some hon. Members may wish to challenge these figures, even the revised ones that I have now given.

Sir Hector Monro: The 25 seated night passengers travelling from Kilmarnock or Dumfries to London, on reaching Carlisle in future on the Sprinter service, will have to get out in the middle of the night and wait for goodness knows how many hours for perhaps a non-existent train to the south because they will not have available the sleeper service that waits in the siding at Carlisle. Is this not rather rough justice for them?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made a legitimate point. As the situation now stands, there would indeed be a two-hour wait at Carlisle. I suggest that my hon. Friend may want to raise that matter with the intercity director and the provincial sector director who will be responsible for the line in future. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun may want to ask British Rail for more information about the matter.

Mr. McKelvey: Has the Minister considered something that is puzzling me? Irrespective of the number of people travelling south on sleepers as only about one third of them come back, are we to assume that many people are leaving the Kilmarnock, Annan and Dumfries area to domicile themselves in London? How on earth do they return to the area—if, indeed, they are coming back?

Mr. Mitchell: I understand that they come back, but not on the sleeper train. It is not necessarily true that people who travel one way on a sleeper will return on a sleeper. The hon. Gentleman will accept that that is perfectly fair and reasonable. I do not want him to assume that the drift of population from Scotland has been accelerating in the way he inferred.
The intercity sleeper service will be re-routed along the west coast main line where it will not suffer the present disadvantage of needing a locomotive change at Carlisle because the Nith valley line is not electrified and the west coast main line is. That means that there must be a change from the diesel locomotive to the electric locomotive at Carlisle. Passengers from Kilmarnock will still be able to use the service by a connecting train to Glasgow, while those from Dumfries will be able to pick it up at Carlisle.


The third intercity service is the daytime through train between Euston and Stranraer. This will run only to and from Carlisle from next May, and there will be a connecting service to Stranraer.
To sum up, there will be changes to three current services. The Stranraer and Glasgow sleepers will be rerouted via the west coast main line. The daytime service between Stranraer and London will run only between London and Carlisle, with the service on from Carlisle to Stranraer provided by the provincial sector.
I am told by British Rail that all those services are under-used at present. British Rail has told me that savings from changing those three services will be £450,000 a year and the House may be surprised at that figure. The loss of revenue will be about £50,000. In addition, BR expects to make significant savings in infrastructure costs in the longer run. That means that at the moment passengers using those intercity services pay through fares only about one ninth of the total cost of those services. The rest is effectively paid for by the taxpayer or by higher fares for other passengers.

Mr. McKelvey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. When I first heard that that level of saving could be achieved, I was surprised. He may want to probe the matter further with the intercity director. Of the savings, some £250,000 is derived from the Glasgow sleeper train and £100,000 because a £1 million locomotive will not have to be renewed. That is a substantial sum of money. Fuel and manpower savings are also taken into account. On the Stranraer sleeper, £60,000 will be saved from part of the cost of the locomotive, and on the daytime service £130,000 will be saved from the locomotive and three coaches.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Member taken into account in the manpower calculation the cost of unemployment benefit paid to someone who would otherwise be employed? The social aspect should enter into the calculation.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may take that view, but the sleeper attendant does not necessarily come from an area of high unemployment. Moreover, we are talking about a commercial organisation. The hon. Gentleman has not suggested that all business men in his constituency who run commercial organisations should adopt the same view on the cost of employment.

Mr. McKelvey: It is becoming even more frightening. Is the Minister saying that the cost of the line is such that we will save £450,000, part of which would be due to the saving of a new locomotive which would have had to be replaced? If those figures were applied throughout the rail network, only electrified lines would be left, so there is no response other than to eliminate all lines which do not use electrification.

Mr. Mitchell: No; the provincial services of British Rail will continue to enjoy a very high level of subsidy. That subsidy will be available for the operations on the Nith line. We are concerned with three trains which are not provincial service trains, are not subsidised and will form part of the commercial rail network in fulfilment of the policy outlined by the Labour Government in their White Paper.
Considerable doubt must exist about whether the losses I referred to earlier can be defended, particularly given that the current sleeper passengers will be able to pick up connecting trains to Glasgow or Carlisle and still pick up the London services from there. The deputation from the Dumfries and Galloway regional council which my hon. Friend brought to see me earlier this week maintained that the intercity service ought to be continued because it is important to the development of the area. If the members of the delegation believe that to be the case, the remedy is in their own hands: under section 63 of the Transport Act 1985 they have power to pay British Rail for a service to be provided, and if they consider that they can justify the cost to their ratepayers they are at liberty to negotiate with British Rail on that basis. Before the council considers whether to take up the option, it should carefully consider the service which will be provided in the future.
After the withdrawal of through services to London on the Nith valley line next May, conventional locomotive trains will for a short time provide local connecting services, but in October 1988 new class 156 Super Sprinter trains will be introduced between Glasgow, Stranraer and Kilmarnock, via Dumfries and Kilmarnock. Those trains will have air suspension, large picture windows and carpeted floors, and will have a very high standard of comfort. On many trains a trolley catering service will be provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the "second-rate service". I hope he will feel, once he sees the new trains in operation, that it is anything but second rate.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall, from a previous incarnation in Northern Ireland, that whenever there was an argument over whether there should be competition on the London-Belfast air routes we were told that at best British Airways were breaking even. Then, whenever competition became a factor, we discovered that they were making a considerable profit. Will the hon. Member for Dumfries be prepared to go carefully through the books and accounting procedures of British Rail? I am always extremely suspicious when I find that enormous losses have been made by services such as this one which are vital to the community.

Mr. Mitchell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern.
I know that a number of hon. Members are to have a meeting with Dr. Prideaux who is responsible for marketing, the standard of service and the bottom line. He is in a position to flesh out the bare information that I have given to the House. I am sure that hon. Members will seek to extract from him the full, detailed, information so that they can understand and explain to their constituents the reasons that have led British Rail in the proposed direction.
The new services along the Nith valley and Stranraer lines will be slightly more frequent than the present services. Details of the new timetable are not yet available, but BR hopes to run a daytime service roughly every two hours. That is a distinct improvement on the present service. On the route via Dumfries good connections will be made, via the daytime services with the south-bound trains at Carlisle and a number of trains, including that from Stranraer, will run through to Newcastle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked about the availability of space at Carlisle. The delegation I saw yesterday mentioned the possibility that passengers who formerly used the Nith valley services would have difficulty in getting on west coast mainline trains because of the shortage of capacity. However, BR says that the daytime services from Carlisle that will replace the Stranraer through service will start from Carlisle and therefore there will be no shortage of seats. Generally, there are occasionally standing passengers on particular problem trains, such as those on Friday nights and holidays.

Sir Hector Monro: I must ask my hon. Friend to check that information with British Rail. I know that it has said that one train will start from Carlisle in the early morning, but all the other through intercity trains will be full of passengers from Glasgow. I know that that is true from travelling regularly.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been as helpful as possible, but I believe that the people in south-west Scotland — a large area — will feel thoroughly disappointed that no one is able to defend their point of view. It appears that BR is always right, whatever it says and whatever its facts and figures. The travelling public do not seem to matter. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to arbitrate on our behalf and to tell BR that it is wrong. The elected representatives of south-west Scotland — Members of Parliament and councillors—know that BR is wrong, but we are not getting any support.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has demonstrated well that the people of south-west Scotland have doughty advocates for their case. I am sure that that will be equally true when hon. Members meet Dr. Prideaux to discuss this matter in more detail.
I accept that the much improved Sprinter services, even with good connections, are not a complete substitute for through trains to those who use them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries can be reassured about the general future of the line. Fear about that has obviously underlain a number of the anxieties that have been expressed.
British Rail is planning to provide a better local service and it hopes—as is usual when a service is improved—that more people will use it. Since 1984 it has demonstrated its faith in the future of the line by opening new stations at Auchinleck and Kilmaurs.
It is suggested by some that Scotland is not receiving its fair share of the benefits of investment in the railways. Surely that can be refuted. On Monday the first stage of ScotRail's new £1 million radio signalling scheme in the west Highlands came into operation. That follows the successful introduction of radio signalling between Dingwall and Kyle of Lochalsh in 1984. Two years later the scheme was extended to Wick and Thurso.
Scottish main lines will be served by the new class 158 express Sprinters, which will be introduced from 1989, giving a faster and more comfortable journey. Earlier this year, the electrification of the line from Glasgow to Ayr and Largs was completed. And, of course, Scotland will benefit from the electrification of the east coast main line from London to Edinburgh, the largest single investment for 25 years and the biggest ever electrification scheme.
I must reiterate a point that I made earlier. It is for British Rail to decide how best to operate its services within the guidelines set by Government. Anything else would be a recipe for confusion. But it has a responsibility for explaining what its plans are, and why changes are being made. From the information BR has given me, it seems that there are good financial reasons for the changes on which it has decided. Nevertheless, I fully accept that some hon. Members do not agree with all the figures that BR has given me. As I said earlier, I hope that my hon. Friends will take up with BR any figures with which they disagree.
It also seems clear that all the changes are not for the worse. For example, the new service that will be provided from next October will in many respects be better than the present one, although there will undoubtedly be a gap between the withdrawal of the intercity service in the spring and the promised October introduction of Super Sprinters.
It is a pity that BR failed to get its message across to the users of the line. There is not much point in its explaining to me what it is doing; I am not a regular user of the line. However, my hon. Friend is, as are Opposition Members. I very much hope that when they meet BR, as I understand they will this week, they will receive the explanations for which they have asked me.
We have had a searching debate. It is not for me to defend all the details of BR's activities; it is for BR to do that. I have sought to give the House the explanation that BR has given me—the reasons that have led it to the changes, which will result in reductions in the sleeper services on the Nith line, but also in the introduction of other sleeper services in areas in which BR, in its commercial judgment, anticipates a growing market. It sees the Nith line as a line that has not been growing over the years.
One point that the deputation put to me when they came to see me earlier this week is the extent of publicising BR's services on the Nith line. Certainly, I hope that they will take that up with BR, not just with Dr. Prideaux when they see him in connection with the intercity services. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will try to meet the sector director for provincial services, who will be concerned with the new Sprinter services, the new timetable and the new connections into the intercity services at Carlisle and Glasgow; and that they will follow up those points specifically at a subsequent meeting.

Mr. Dalyell: I should not like it to be thought that we are slagging ScotRail. It did a very good thing in opening the Edinburgh to Bathgate line, and many members of its management have shown imagination. I should not like the debate to leave the general impression that I—along perhaps with some of my hon. Friends — am being critical of ScotRail. Along with the NUR in Scotland, it has shown considerable imagination in many respects.

Mr. Mitchell: I—like the hon. Gentleman, no doubt —have travelled on that line to Bathgate. It is part of the provincial network, and, I believe, has the current Sprinters. It has been very well received, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to it.
There is a good deal to be gained from talking to those who run the provincial services in Scotland about the timetable, and the provision that they propose to make in future on the Nith line. I hope that that will be followed up.

Flood Damage (Northern Ireland)

Mr. William Ross: I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Gentlemen who took part in the last debate had a very long night because, unlike me, they were not able to slip home for a few hours in bed. I do hope that you managed to get a few hours' sleep yourself before the rigours of the coming day.
We in Northern Ireland are particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the matter that they raised, because it has a bearing on transport from Northern Ireland where there are some people who simply do not like flying all the time. Believing that if the good Lord had meant us to fly he would have given us wings, they prefer to keep their bottoms on something that runs on four wheels. I must confess that if I lived in Great Britain rather than in Northern Ireland I would tend to travel by rail rather than by aeroplane. I do not like aircraft anyway, and I feel most unsafe up there all the time. In any event, we hope that those who look after transport arrangements from Northern Ireland will add their voices to those of the hon. Members who have spoken for south-west Scotland on this matter, because we consider it serious for people who travel by rail from Northern Ireland.
As we come to the end of this long debate, I rise to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister responsible the consequences of the damage suffered in Northern Ireland In the very severe rainstorm in October of this year.
The House will appreciate that there were three swathes of destruction that swept across the United Kingdom in a matter of two or three weeks. The first to suffer was the south of England, which had hurricane winds which caused immense damage, and there was, no doubt, also damage caused by the rain which accompanied or followed the wind. Then there was the enormous amount of damage in Wales, caused by the rainstorm there, followed a week later by rainstorm damage in Northern Ireland. The amount of water that came down in a 24-hour period was quite phenomenal.
The Minister will be aware that I put down a number of questions to him and to other Northern Ireland Ministers about the damage. It was indicated to me that in Strabane district alone 300 dwellings were flooded, in Omagh 84, in Fermanagh 52, in Craigavon 35, in Coleraine 28, in Banbridge 24, in Armagh 16 and in Limavady 13. I believe that those figures are not complete, for there are isolated dwellings in the rural areas which were flooded and which I am sure do not appear in those figures. I have come across one or two in my own area. There were many other areas where there was a considerable amount of damage to a small number of dwellings. In addition, a considerable number of roads were damaged, and some bridges will have to be replaced. At least 25 have been found to be damaged, and I feel sure that that is not the complete list.
There is a real problem in funding from public sources the public works which will have to be carried out as a result of the damage suffered on this occasion. Of course, in so far as the public representatives there are concerned, Strabane district council and Omagh district council have been particularly active in bringing to the attention of

Government the damage that was suffered in their areas, and the hardship and loss which were occasioned to many living in those areas as a result of the enormous amount of rain that fell. I would like to commend Strabane district council for the manner in which it has produced a briefing booklet on this matter, which it sent to a number of right hon. and hon. Members, detailing the damage.
I must say that the damage was not limited to that area and, while I have great concern for all who suffered, I know more about what happened in my constituency than in Northern Ireland as a whole. I am just sorry that there are not more hon. Members from Northern Ireland here to take part in this brief debate.
The interesting thing, as those of us who watched television forecasts at the time will be aware—perhaps a word to the House would not be amiss—is that most of the rainstorms that we get in the United Kingdom result from a relatively narrow band of cloud, perhaps 70 to 100 miles wide, sweeping across the British Isles, giving a comparatively short period of time during which rain actually falls. Those who watch the excellent weather forecasts on television will have noted that on this occasion, instead of sweeping across the British Isles, the band of rain seemed to travel along the line of cloud, so that it was prolonged and heavy, which led to serious flooding.
I am told by the Ministry of Defence that the daily rainfall totals were very rare, and have a return rate of 200 years or more. There has been heavier rainfall in the past, but it was over much smaller areas. To be told that this rain storm will occur only once every 200 years is quite horrific, but it proves how serious, unusual and damaging this rain storm was.
The Minister will recall answering a question that I asked on 12 November regarding the flows of the River Roe at that time. He said that the maximum flow recorded in this last flood was 171 cu m per second at 2 am on 22 October. At that time, the banks were widely breached upstream, so the recording gauge was showing a much lower figure than the amount of water that was coming down the river.
Will the Minister check the figures that he gave for the rainfall for that river? It is a fairly substantial stream at that point. The river was flowing fairly fast. I visited the main breaches just above that measuring point a few days afterwards. I noticed that at one point the bank was out for 15 yds and that at another it was out for 20 yds. The flood waters were near the top of a 9 ft high bank, so there was a 35 yd width of water coming through on to the agricultural land behind it. If one measures it, which is not hard to do, the breach in the banks was 35 yds wide, and, even at a depth of 6 ft and a speed of only 3 ft per second, that is nearly 70 cu m per second going through the bank.
I am sure that far more water was travelling down the river. The Minister should ask his officials to check their figures again. When I look at the minimum flow in cubic metres that is recorded for the River Roe at that point and the maximum that was recorded in this and other exceptional floods, I question whether, as an interested lay observer, they have got it right. I believe that far more water was travelling down the river because there is a substantial channel in the river at that point. I know that it can be affected by tides, but not to a great extent.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has written to me and pointed out a number of problems with


regard to the flood banks. The reality is that 3 in of rain fell in the catchment area of the river within a few hours, and that was bound to lead to a considerable flood.
How much rainfall are the river banks of Northern Ireland expected to contain? Whenever drainage officials and engineers plan the height, width and size of the banks for any drainage scheme, they have an exceptional rainfall pattern in mind. While the rainfall return period for large areas may be 200 years, there is a shorter return period for rainfall in a given catchment area. I know that there have been rainfalls in various areas heavier than we experienced which have led to extremely large floods in individual rivers. When the engineers are planning flood banks, they obviously have in mind a maximum flood that they should be able to contain and control. What is the figure? What is the frequency of floods of that nature?
We have to ask: what qualifies as a disaster? If we have a normal flood and a normal rainfall the Government will say, naturally, "This is a fairly normal level of risk and we have no responsibility." If there is an abnormal incident, such as we experienced, the Government will say that it was unforeseen, no one could have thought that it would happen and, therefore, they are not guilty again because the flood banks are designed to contain much less rain. For the Government it is, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I believe that we have to define a natural disaster as an event which is unforeseen and causes large losses and damage to individuals and groups.
In many parts of the world such unforeseen events can be tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanoes or drought. In our case it was heavy rainfall. Other parts of the world experience heavy rainfall as well. However, the problem is that the Government put up their hands in horror and wash their hands thoroughly of any responsibility or need to provide adequate compensation and help for those who suffer. I question whether the attitude that has been taken by the Government hitherto is adequate in this day and age when we look at the problems suffered by the people in our country.
The leader of my party received a letter from Lord Lyell in which he said:
A high standard of flood protection is set in drainage scheme designs but the Department does not, and could not, claim to prevent flooding in all circumstances … the Department of Agriculture is specifically exempted from liability for damage resulting from accidental overflowing of a watercourse.
The letter said that the Government did not consider it appropriate to declare a natural disaster as
prompt and significant assistance has already been provided in a variety of measures and EC aid is on its way.
That is nonsense. The aid that has been provided is infinitesimal in relation to the scale of the damage and loss suffered. In that letter we see the Government washing their hands of any willingness to help on a major scale.
Whenever there is drought in Ethiopia, which sadly seems to be recurring, and when there are major disasters such as earthquakes, floods or fires in Third-world countries, Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and announce a package of aid. A considerable amount of help is often sent to foreign countries. Does charity not begin at home? Have we forgotten the needs of our own people, many of whom suffer grievously? As I have pointed out already, the floods in Northern Ireland were the third occurrence in a group of natural disasters hitting the

United Kingdom. They happened one after another, ranging from the south of England to Wales and Northern Ireland.
Looking at the number of dwellings and commercial properties that were damaged in Northern Ireland, one begins to get an impression of the scale of the damage. Five hundred houses were damaged, as were 200 commercial properties, which included some shops in which the stock was washed out of the doors. Six manufacturing premises, schools, houses and hospitals were damaged, poultry, sheep, pigs, and cattle were drowned, and heaven alone knows what else. I know that in my area 70 acres of potatoes simply disappeared under water and have been a complete loss.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 1985, the Department of the Environment acknowledged that the stone barrier wall running parallel to the river along Lower Main street from Strabane bridge to the camel's hump was faulty and perforated in no fewer than 10 places, and that an earlier report had been commissioned by the Department of Agriculture? Does he further agree that the Minister should have that latter report published, as it is perceived that the failure by those Departments to act has contributed to the flood damage to premises and property in the area?

Mr. Ross: The wall has been there for a long time. We must ask why repairs were not carried out promptly. One exceptional flood showed up all its weaknesses, and its collapse led to millions of pounds worth of damage in Strabane. The damage which would arise as a result of the wall collapsing was bound to be considerable, and the Government had a responsibility to maintain it.
The Minister may say that the Government do not cover people for matters that are normally dealt with by insurance, but that they have instructed Northern Ireland Departments to act as sympathetically as possible on individual problems. The problem is that not all damage is insurable, and some is insurable only at prohibitive cost. Farmers Union insurance covers most agricultural insurance in Northern Ireland, and I am informed that flood damage is covered as an extension of storm damage where the flood risk is normal. That means flood damage is covered when the risk is tiny.
A farmyard on the top of a hill will not be flooded very often, but some people have to live in flood plains because that is where their land is situated. Insurance companies do not want to know such people. If there is a history of flooding, the chance of getting cover disappears. The result is that the individual has to bear the cost. I believe that it is time that that cost was spread more widely. A relatively small proportion of people live in flood areas.
There are similar problems associated with insuring livestock in buildings. There is not much choice with poultry. One cannot let them out of the house, so they simply drown. A constituent suffered just that, and he faces a loss of £15,000 or £16,000. Stock in fields can be covered, but it rarely is. I have constituents who knew that the water was coming but could do nothing about it because the land was so flat and the area so extensive. Stock simply stayed out until it drowned. Sheep and cattle lose their heads, of course, and the poor things get frightened, so when there is water around their knees in the middle of the night it is impossible to chase them out of danger and in some cases it would have been a risk to human life to try to rescue the stock.
There were two breaches in the banks of the River Roe 35 yd total width at Ardnargle just below Limavady. Ardnargle is at the upper end of the lower flood plain, much of which has been reclaimed. It is perhaps the only area in Ireland where the land has to be pumped to keep it dry, as some of it is below sea level. A huge amount of water got out and flooded at least 1,000 acres several feet deep. The farmers discovered that although the floods dropped in a matter of hours, there was no way that they could get the water off the land. It simply stayed there because the outlets are 12 in or 15 in pipes. It was there for a week, and when I went there it was like looking at Lough Neagh. One man had a pool of water in a brand-new house. That did not look very nice. He lost many things. Other householders also suffered grievously at Limavady and Articlave where, although living 12 ft or 13 ft above the stream, they still had 3 ft of water in their houses. That was completely abnormal and unexpected. In some cases people were not insured and lost all their furniture and everything else that they possessed.
When the flood banks broke at Ardnargle the water went down behind the banks and stayed there. I have put a number of suggestions to the drainage division to try to have works constructed which will get the water out quickly. The officials and engineers are making arrangements to see me in the near future about that to see whether my ideas are feasible. I think that they are, but they may be rather costly.
I can only say that in an area of such valuable agricultural land one must take exceptional measures to protect it in future. It is also important to realise that my proposals will simply do what should have been done when the river was first banked nearly 30 years ago. There is no point in building banks to keep water out when there is no way of getting it out once it goes over or through breaches. This is not the only area where that can happen, but it is certainly serious here.
I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to look seriously at my proposals, and, if they are not acceptable, to come up with something that will work.
In some areas no banking has been done because of the nature of the subsoil. I refer here to the Rivers Agivey and Bann where there are serious problems which cannot easily be righted. Will the Government find a means of paying grant to farmers and others to protect their dwellings by erecting low banks, or let the drainage division do it? Many dwellings in those areas could be protected in future by a bank 4 ft or 5 ft high with a long sloping profile. Many other measures could and should be taken to give future protection, but that does not compensate for the suffering caused by this most recent event.
The local councils, the Housing Executive and even the Coal Board, God rest them, did their best, but I have a bit of a crib against them all. Councils cannot take powers to deal with flood damage on this scale. The Housing Executive was caught without any means of drying out houses, although it did its best, and the coal board donated 50 tonnes of coal, but only to Strabane and Omagh. But, as I pointed out, the damage was far more widespread than that. It does not matter whether it is one of the 300 individuals who suffered loss as a result of 3 ft or 5 ft of water in a house in Strabane, or a farmer or other rural dweller who suffers the same sort of damage, the individual hardship is the same in all cases. Yet here one

group of people received aid which was not made available to all. Surely that is inequitable and unjust and simply should not happen.
The DHSS made emergency payments and then asked for them to be paid back. Those emergency payments could only be made to one class of people—those who qualified in normal circumstances. Many people simply did not qualify for that aid.
Most modern furniture, especially kitchen furniture, being made of chipboard, was good for nothing but throwing out once water got into it. In many cases, furniture worth many thousands of pounds has had to be dumped. Of course, some of the people affected had insurance, but, for one reason or another, others did not.
The EEC appears to have made available £150,000, but the damage runs into millions of pounds. I do not know how that money will be shared out, but, even if it is shared equally, it is a tiny sum. Can the Minister tell me exactly how much aid has been made available, how much it represents per household, how it will be shared out and why the decisions were made as they were? There seems to be quite a lot of inequity in the system that was used.

Mr. Ian Gow: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he remind the House which Ministers came to see the results of the flooding that he has described to the House?

Mr. Ross: As I understand it, Lord Lyell visited some farmers and the Secretary of State visited one or two farms that were affected. I believe that most of the Ministers with this responsibility came down. Indeed, people were glad to see them. However, it is not really the Minister's face that those people want to see; they want to know whether some active, concrete help can be provided.
I turn now to the repair of public utilities, including roads and bridges. This will run into several million pounds. How will that be funded? Will it come out of the normal allocation of money, or will it be treated as an extra, which must be met from, for example, the Contingency Fund?
The plain truth is that the Government have a responsibility when banks have been breached. I think that they are trying to dodge that responsibility, and I do not blame them for that in the light of the cost that would be involved. However, I do not think that they should be allowed to get away with it either. A great problem is that there does not seem to be any system in Northern Ireland—or, indeed, in the United Kingdom—for dealing with natural disasters. It is all very well to say that the security forces, the councils, the Housing Executive and the voluntary agencies behaved magnificently, but there does not seem to be any cohesive plan to put into action. There does not seem to be any means whereby everbody is told to get out and do something when the disaster is actually happening. Above all, there does not seem to be any means of providing financial aid to those who have suffered, without any possibility of an insurance settlement. Indeed, they will not have much chance of getting insurance in the future, having been flooded once.
There does not seem to be much understanding of the emotional disturbance, specially to old people of being flooded. If the Minister were to consider the research that has been carrried out into this subject, he would find several consequences, a number of which are unquantifiable. There is the sheer destruction of the quality of


lifestyle, the anxiety that it will happen again, and the problem of damage to health, which, is a real problem to those who have suffered. There is also the risk to life. No-one lost their life, but some people came close to doing so.
Above all, can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government are to consider more seriously and sympathetically the way in which people will be compensated or helped for the damage and loss that they have suffered? It is not good enough for the Government to say, "Yes, it has been a dreadful time we are very sorry. We are going to help the Ethiopians, because of their starvation and drought problems, but we are only going to be sorry for the folk at home and not provide any real help for those who have suffered a substantial loss, whether it be furniture or belongings or the loss of thousands of pounds worth of crop and stock to farmers." In some cases, that will wipe out the farmers' profits for two to three years. It is not enough for the Government to say that they are sorry, because they have a greater responsibility than that.
Society should have a greater responsibility for those who are unfortunate enough to suffer in such circumstances and extend a helping hand to them. A helping hand is needed at this time. There is a catalogue of hardship and trouble not only in my constituency but throughout Northern Ireland, and it needs to be met. Although no hon. Members from the south of England or Wales are present, the Government should be far more sympathetic to people who suffer in extreme weather conditions. Their plight should be met with extreme and exceptional measures.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on the manner in which he brought this serious matter to the attention of the House. I shall make only a brief comment to the Minister. We have been corresponding about many areas in my constituency in which flooding regularly occurs. I hope that the Minister's statements will bring positive results and prevention in such areas in future.
In October this year, two locations in my constituency which normally would not be flooded, were flooded. It is possible that there will be repeated flooding through similar circumstances elsewhere. Such circumstances are preventable. First, flooding occurred at a house at Cairn castle, which is outside Lame. It was the direct result of the construction of a new building at a higher level. No consideration had been given to the drainage of the site. It is believed that the natural drainage had been upset by the developers. They simply filled in the drains to make a driveway to the new property. The result was that when heavy rainfall occurred water did not follow its natural course, but literally gushed down the steep roadway and flooded the unfortunate householder's property.
The second incident occurred at Inverary heights, which, again, is just outside Lame. It is a new private development. I have no doubt that before the development could proceed and planning permission could be given the approval of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food drainage division had to be sought and advice given about the size of the piping that was required to culvert a natural watercourse. However, the grille that was erected at the edge of the estate, behind the back garden of No.

7, became blocked. No. 7 has been flooded on two occasions this year. That has never happened before in the history of residents who have lived in Carrickfergus road for 30 or 40 years. Water penetrated housing foundations through the ventilators and the residents are alarmed that it could happen again.
I bring the matter to the Minister's attention and request that the planning service for which he has responsibility take steps to persuade new developers, be they large or small, to take proper account of natural drainage and avoid upsetting it. In addition, will the Minister ensure that where a grille has been installed with culverting, a secondary grille is put in front of it so that if the first becomes blocked and there is an overflow, the newly-installed culvert will catch the water and the surrounding areas will not be flooded?
More important, can the Minister tell me who is responsible for maintaining and cleaning the grilles at the entrances to culverted water courses if such permission is given? Is it the Department of the Environment, or the Department of Agriculture? Does responsibility revert to the land owner who has benefited from the sale of development land? Someone must be responsible, as presently people suffer neglect by whoever is responsible. I hope that it will be possible to avert flooding in future by closer co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for bringing the issue to our attention. He is right to say that floods in the south west of Britain and in Wales received much attention in the press, but the disaster in Northern Ireland has not received the attention that it warrants or the aid that is needed from the Government. The hon. Gentleman is correct to press the Government to provide more assistance for rebuilding the infrastructure destroyed by the floods, and to provide additional financial assistance to those who have lost their property. The hon. Gentleman is doing a duty to all the people of Northern Ireland by bringing the matter to our attention.
I am pleased that the Minister is here to answer some of the specific questions put to him by the hon. Member for Londonderry. If the Minister is not an expert on meteorology, some of those advising him are and they should be able to provide us with information about the speed of water flow in rivers and the likely effects of erosion during a flood, and over 200 years. I am not sure that those questions can be answered at this time in the morning, but the Minister has notice of them. They might usefully occupy the Minister, or someone in the Northern Ireland Office, in a PhD study for the next three years. The questions are posing and imposing, and I look forward to hearing the Minister give his answers—which I hope I will understand—in a few moments.
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate on Northern Ireland that does not begin with a criticism of the hour of the day or night at which it is held. We all realise the crucial importance of this issue and we are pleased that it is being debated, even at the fag end of a very long day.
As the House knows, we are concerned with the floods that occurred as a consequence of heavy rainfall on 21 and 22 October, particularly in the western part of the


Province. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, many hundreds of homes were damaged, if not destroyed, by the flood.
I shall rehearse the figures again, for the benefit of the Minister and of the House, to show the scale of the financial losses involved. At least £1·3 million worth of damage was done to household contents; about £5 million to £6 million worth of damage was done to shops and their contents; and an unknown quantity of damage was done to farms, farmlands and the cattle or other beasts on that land. The roughest estimate that can be given is that about £10 million worth of damage was caused by the flood.
The Northern Ireland citizens advice bureau described the area affected around Strabane as a disaster area. Strabane district council described the flood's results as a catastrophe. I am sure the Minister will have read the council's report, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred. I want to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about it. It was a first class effort on the part of the council to highlight the difficulties and the plight of people living in that area.
The Government have readily accepted some of their responsibility for the damage. At least some of the seven bridges that were destroyed in the Strabane area have already been replaced by temporary ones, and plans are afoot to replace them more permanently. A plan has been announced to build a new flood wall in the Strabane area at a cost of £4·5 million. I see the Minister nodding his agreement to that. I might add that that is rather like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Minister and the Government know that an incident in 1985 showed that the flood walls could be breached—as they were — and that there was a danger that if high floods occurred in the future the kind of catastrophe that took place on 27 October might result.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Government are largely responsible for unlocking the stable door in the first place. With regard to land drainage, there have been large grants to farmers and others all over the country for many years, which increases the flood over a shorter period of time. In other words, the flood profile, although not measurable, has certainly altered in a serious and disastrous fashion.

Mr. Marshall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that the Minister heard the question, and will, we hope, reply to it eventually, perhaps in the form of a written reply.
It is right to ask the Government why the flood wall was not repaired after the incident in 1985, and why it took two years to bring to the design stage a scheme to replace the existing flood wall.
I shall now deal with the question of compensation for personal and business losses. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, the Government have taken the line that it is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of people to seek compensation on their own insurance. That is a ridulous attitude for the Government to adopt. As the Minister must know, about 66 per cent. of the people affected by the disaster have no relevant insurance. That is not through any lack of forethought on their part. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, one reason is that the cost of taking out insurance is prohibitively high. Another important reason is that the

unemployment rate of about 44 per cent. in this part of the Province is not only the highest rate in the United Kingdom, but is among the highest in western Europe. It is hardly surprising that these poor souls cannot afford insurance. In that context, the £500,000 that the Government have made available is totally inadequate to meet the scale of the problem and the needs of the area.
It is time that the Government accepted their responsibility and their liability. The floods resulted from Government failure to take action on the flood wall. The danger was brought to the attention of the Government in 1985. I understand that it was reported to the Department of Agriculture and was known by the Government. Because of that, the Government should accept their responsibility. They should declare Strabane and the surrounding area a disaster area, admit their liability and negligence and be prepared to accept claims for compensation.

Mr. William Ross: While Strabane had many flooded houses, the damage throughout Northern Ireland was great. Instead of asking for help only for Strabane and Omagh, the hon. Gentleman should extend his remarks to the whole of the Province. As I said in my speech, the damage to a person in a rural area is just as substantial to that person as is the damage to a person in Strabane.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to ignore the difficulties in the other parts of the Province and I fully accept what he has said. However, I think he will agree that the concentration of destruction was far higher in the Strabane area than elsewhere in the Province. If the Government were to accept liability for the consequences of their negligence, all the people in the Province would be able to claim against the Government. I emphasised Strabane and district because of the concentration of destruction that took place there.
As I have said, the Government should declare Strabane and the surrounding area a disaster area and admit their liability and negligence in respect of the burst river banks and the river wall. I understand that the Minister visited the area on Thursday and, as is his fashion, he had many pleasant words for the people who live in the area. Unfortunately, his warm words bring cold comfort to those who are suffering financial hardship. He could give more succour and hope if, as a result of the debate, he was able to offer more financial assistance. I hope that after the debate the people in the area will no longer feel that they have been ignored by the Government at a time of desperate need. I hope that the Government can offer some comfort to the people of Northern Ireland, and especially to the people in Strabane and the surrounding area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, it is usually at the fag end of the day that we conduct our debates on Northern Ireland. Perhaps at this hour of the morning we are sharper in our wits than we are at midnight.
I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to discuss the important issues that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised concerning the


appalling flooding that took place on the night of 21–22 October. As hon. Members have pointed out, the damage was extensive, particularly in Strabane and Omagh, but also on an even wider geographical basis than that.
The survey that I initiated after the Secretary of State asked me to take overall ministerial responsibility for the floods—and I pay tribute at the outset to the work that is being done by the Omagh and Strabane district councils in discovering the extent of the problems in their areas —showed that 337 houses in Strabane were affected, of which 199 are owned by the Housing Executive and 138 are either privately owned or rented. Structural damage was estimated at £370,000, with a loss of contents figure of £1·3 million. Of those 337 houses, 227 were not insured.
In Omagh, 148 properties were affected, of which 139 were privately owned and nine were owned by the Housing Executive. Estimated structural damage was £480,000 and contents damage £470,000, and in that case only 59 of those properties were not insured. About 50 properties outside Strabane and Omagh, to our knowledge, were affected, but I accept that it probably goes wider than that, and we shall do whatever we can to discover the numbers because, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, it does not matter, when one is flooded, whether one is in a residential park of 20 or on one's own in the countryside.
In both towns, Strabane and Omagh, 200 commercial properties were flooded with substantial losses of contents and stock, which we have not yet been adequately able to identify, and six major industrial sites — Nestles in Omagh and Sintons in Tandragee, for example—also suffered severely.
In terms of agricultural land, fixtures and fittings, we estimate that £300,000 worth of damage was done in the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, with the loss of 310 sheep, 13,000 poultry, 33 hectares of potatoes, 100 hectares of cereals and oil seed rape, of which about 50 per cent. may have to be resown.
It is right to bring to the attention of the House the size of the flooding on that night. It was an exceptional flood, one which would not normally occur more than once in perhaps 140 years. That gives an idea of the size of the downfall of water.
We must pay tribute to the work that was done that night by the emergency services throughout Northern Ireland. They behaved splendidly in dealing with the problems in appalling conditions. The police, the UDR, the fire service, the DOE, the Housing Executive, the electricity service, the district councils, the Health and Social Services Board, local voluntary groups, Help the Aged, the Red Cross, the Churches, St. Vincent de Paul and so on, all worked remorselessly to assist those who were suffering.
I accept what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said about the need for departmental organisation to ensure that we have adequate co-ordination if such an eventuality should recur. In reporting back to the Secretary of State, I shall be looking at all these matters and making suggestions where necessary about the organisational structure which is currently in place for dealing with catastrophes of this sort.
The Government take their responsibilities extremely seriously. The action that we have taken already can be considered within two broad categories—action to help individuals, and action to replace and repair the damaged

infrastructure. Under the assistance to individuals, we have paid out more than £250,000 in social security urgent payments to more than 500 individuals. Some of that money may be recoverable under the terms of the legislation. However, if some is repayable—and I cannot unilaterally change the existing rules of the social security system—we will ensure that any necessary repayments are carefully and sensitively handled and that people will not be asked to repay in quantity or in time more than they can possibly afford taking into account their problems as a result of being flooded. We will consider each case with great care.
There may be people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Londonderry, East who have not made claims under the urgent needs provision but who may well be entitled to those payments. They should go to their local DHSS office to discover whether they are entitled to claim. Even if a repayment is required, it is probably better to follow that route than to borrow money and pay interest to a bank or a money lender. Once the needs have been considered, repayments may not be necessary in any event. I have specifically asked DHSS offices to ensure that anyone who comes in now to make a claim will have that claim considered and met if possible.
Some £25,000 was given in residential and other help by the western health and social services board; and the Housing Executive has done everything possible to assist in drying out with the provision of humidifiers. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East that it is not necessarily possible to have the right amount of humidifiers and drying out equipment to cope with a sudden disaster of this magnitude.
Rehousing has been undertaken where necessary. As the hon. Gentleman remarked, 70 tonnes, not 50 tonnes, of coal were distributed in those areas that suffered the greatest calamity. I do not deny that there were a few properties elsewhere that also suffered. However, the Government decided that the maximum assistance must go to the areas that were worst affected. That also applied with the aid from the European Commission of about £57,000 which has been distributed to 500 households and represents about £126 each. We have also undertaken to repay any money paid out by the voluntary organisations so that the EEC money can go direct to families concerned and we covered £13,000 worth of the costs that the voluntary organisations had to pay out during the first few weeks. We are also in touch with the Industrial Development Board and the Local Economic Development Unit which are considering their client companies to see what can be done to help if their insurance was inadequate.
We have advised on disturbance and redecoration allowances, where applicable. The Strabane district council has set up a trust fund, and there are statutory provisions for local authorities to help in these circumstances if they wish. That has been done by Strabane.

Mr. William Ross: Councils can make available only very small sums, so they are only a drop in the ocean compared with the damage. Secondly, are the EEC funds being restricted to Strabane and Omagh, or will they be spread over all the people, including my constituents, who suffered? Thirdly, when he talks about the IDB and LEDU


industries, this could introduce another inequity if LEDU industries were not able to get insurance as they were in a flood plain. The whole mess must be sorted out.

Mr. Needham: EEC money was directed specifically at Strabane and Omagh as the worst affected areas. The European Commission asked that that be done, and it has been done. It has also been done at other times when natural disasters have occurred in the EEC, not just in Northern Ireland but in Spain or Italy, and money has been directed to those areas worst affected.
It has long been accepted, not only by the Government but by their predecessor, that Governments do not cover insurable losses, and I do not believe that any incoming Government would change that view. If people are not insured, I accept the point of the hon. Member for Leicester, South about deprivation, but many people who are unemployed have taken out insurance cover and paid their premiums over the years. Neither the Government nor any other Government would pick up the tab for insurable losses in calamities such as this, when insurance companies exist to cover them. It does not make any difference whether it is domestic, commercial, industrial or farming insurance.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked whether there is difficulty in people getting insurance, because their land may be flat or the houses in an area which may be prone to flooding. I have looked carefully at this and I have had no evidence put to me that it is difficult to get insurance to cover the one-in-140-years flood. No evidence has been given to me that the premiums were such in the areas affected that farmers, individuals, companies or commercial properties found difficulty in gaining insurance cover. If the hon. Member for Londonderry, East tells me that is not the case, I shall consider it when he writes and gives me the examples. As the Minister responsible, I would welcome any evidence of that.
We have tried to help those people who were not insured and to ensure that we can replace what they have lost, as best we can, through a whole raft of measures. For example, we have given the voluntary organisations in Strabane and Omagh an additional 45 ACE workers. If the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has voluntary organisations in his constituency which wish to undertake work to help others who were not insured and have had losses, if he comes to me with a proposal for additional ACE workers or for help through voluntary organisations — through YTPC schemes or other schemes that voluntary organisations would like to undertake — I assure him that I will look at it sympathetically. We shall do all that we can to help because the fact that somebody has been flooded in Londonderry is no different from somebody being flooded in Strabane or Omagh. I shall try to help the constituents of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry to intervene as I appreciate that we are running out of time, but since the Minister is in charge of councils in Northern Ireland, will he ask them to quantify the extent of the problem? Will he also ask those councils to conduct the surveys in a similar way to that adopted by the councils in Strabane and Omagh?

Mr. Needham: That is up to the councils. I can ask those councils all sorts of things, but whether they do

anything will be entirely up to them. If councils feel that such a survey is worth undertaking, they are Free to conduct one—there is no reason why they should not.
I have already said that the greatest amount of damage occurred in Strabane and Omagh. I accept that there are pockets of problems elsewhere. If the local councils feel that they should conduct a survey and then come back to me with ideas regarding what should be done, I shall consider them most carefully.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East has had great experience. Indeed, during his years in this House I have listened to him on many occasions. I acknowledge his background knowledge of agriculture. We shall check the figures regarding the water flow of the River Roe in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested and I shall come back to him with the answers.
Let us consider the parameters used by the Department of Agriculture when building flood banks. The Department considers the cost effectiveness of any flood schemes that are brought forward. On agricultural land a flood protection scheme would be created to guard against a flood that happened every five years. If that land was used for cereal crops, such a flood bank might be considered for flooding that occurred once every 20 years. For urban areas protection would be afforded against a flood occurring once every 100 years.
There are grants available to farmers, and if they want to make use of them they should get in touch with the Department to consider what could be made available. I urge the hon. Member for Londonderry, East to tell his constituents to do that.
The hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Leicester, South invited me to accept liability for what happened at Strabane. They will not be surprised to learn that I shall do no such thing. The Department of Agriculture does not accept liability. If some people believe that the Department is liable, they have recourse through the courts and the courts will decide. I am concerned to make sure that everything is being done to ensure that those who have suffered as a result of the disaster and who are not insured are helped in every way possible within the rules.
I have explained to the House that the Government are doing all that they can to help and that we will bring assistance to all those, certainly in the Omagh and Strabane areas, whose domestic circumstances have suffered. The Government are committed to alleviate those people's problems.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I believe that the Minister visited the Strabane area last Thursday. In the minute that is left to him, will he give the House an idea of the representations that were made to him and his reply to such representations?

Mr. Needham: I went through the same proposals that I have gone through tonight. I also explained, which I have not had time to do on this occasion, about our spending on the infrastructure. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the money that we need to spend to replace the infrastructure will not mean cuts in other services in Northern Ireland.
I also went through the plans that we have, jointly with the councils, for assisting people through the voluntary organisations. Clearly the councils would have wished me to do more, and to compensate those who were not


insured. I understand that, but I have explained to them and to the House why I was not able to do what they wanted.
Let me briefly turn to the points made by the hon. Member for—
It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Copley Marshall and Co. Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

9 am

Mr. Graham Riddick: Just as some of my constituents in New Mill might find it odd and unusual that I can go to bed on Tuesday night, wake up and come to the House on Wednesday morning and still be able to make a speech here on Tuesday, so some hon. Members might think it unusual that I can initiate a debate involving a small company which employs only about 45 people and has a turnover of no more than 1·5 million per annum. However, this is a matter of great concern to the firm in question, Copley Marshall and Co. Ltd. and to all its directors and employees.
The textile industry in my constituency, as in many other parts of west Yorkshire, was hit very hard during the recession, and it is a tribute to the hard work and resilience of companies such as Copley Marshall that they survived. Certainly the company went through a very difficult period, but it has now come through the worst and is beginning to prosper again.
As I have said, it is only a small company employing 45 people, and it is fighting hard to make its contribution to the country's economic revival. It is disheartening, to say the least, when small companies such as this find themselves obstructed by a brick wall of British officialdom and bureaucracy, yet that is exactly what has happened in this case. The company was refused an important licence for a consignment of Egyptian cotton yarn which was of vital importance to its business, although import licences had been issued on previous occasions in exactly the same circumstances.
The purpose of my initiating this debate is to convince my hon. Friend the Minister that he should issue an import licence for the consignment. However, I also hope that he will consider whether he should initiate an internal inquiry in his Department to see whether the procedures followed by the import licensing branch are as efficient and faultless as they might be, and to see how the problem—which was of its making — came about. Let me outline the story behind the case, so that the House can understand the problem that Copley Marshall is experiencing.
The company operates in a specialised field, in which it processes dyed cotton yarns for a number of purposes, one of which is use in car trims. Cotton yarn, when fully processed, is therefore exported to firms such as BMW, Mercedes Benz and Audi, as well as being sold to British companies such as Rover and Jaguar, which in turn export many of their cars. Copley Marshall is playing its part in Britain's export drive.
In 1985, Copley Marshall purchased its first batch of cotton yarn from an Egyptian supplier and received an import licence against an Egyptian export licence marked "Out of quota", and also marked with the initials IP. Following that, the company imported further batches, having obtained Department of Trade and Industry import licences against Egyptian export licences, one of which was marked "Out of quota" and endorsed with the initials "IP". Others were marked "In quota". A number of consignments were successfully and efficiently imported, processed by Copley Marshall and sold to a firm in Leeds, which processed the yarn further before exporting much of it. Incidentally, I should just point out


that Egyptian long staple cotton is the only type that is suitable for weaving the narrow fabric required for car trims.
Earlier this year Copley Marshall arranged to import two more consignments of cotton yarn from Egypt and, as in the past, having received the export licence from the Egyptian authorities, arranged to have the yarn shipped to this country. Once the yarn arrived here, however, the company found to its horror that the Department of Trade and Industry was refusing to grant the necessary import licence.
The company made immediate representations to the Department and, receiving no joy, contacted me, whereupon I wrote to my hon. Friend and received, I am sorry to say, the same negative response as the company had received. The reason given for refusing an import licence was that the company had been issued with the wrong type of export certificate by the Egyptians. The fact is, however, that the company had satisfactorily imported previous consignments with exactly the same export licences as it possessed for this year's consignment.
The Department of Trade and Industry admitted in a letter to me, dated 13 August, that its import licensing branch had issued import licences in error against earlier applications. Presumably it was referring to the two earlier Egyptian export licences which has also been marked "Out of quota" and "IP". The company had arranged this consignment in good faith and bearing in mind that there had been no problems whatever with the earlier consignments for which it had had similar export licences, it came like a bolt from the blue to be told that the export certificate issued by the Egyptians was incorrect and therefore an import licence would not be issued. That was news to the company. It was the first time that there had been any problems whatever.
The disturbing aspect of this whole episode is that once the company found itself in this predicament the Department of Trade and Industry seemed somewhat reluctant to do anything to sort out the problem; a problem which was very much of the Department's making, having earlier issued an import licence, albeit in error. The Department suggested to the company that it should seek a new, correct export certificate from the Egyptians. The Egyptians were, however, not in the least bit interested in doing that, because the company had had to pay for that batch of yarn, as it had all the other batches, with an irrevocable letter of credit. The Egyptians already had their money in their pocket and refused to issue a new export licence. So that avenue was closed to Copley Marshall.
The only alternative suggested by the Department was that the company should sell the batch of cotton yarn to a buyer from a non-EEC country, or to a buyer within the EEC, who would guarantee to re-export the yarn to a destination outside the EEC. The company tried all its contacts, in countries as far away as Uruguay, Canada and the United States, but found that no one was in the least interested in buying the product on those terms. So the company has come up against a brick wall and it really does not know where to turn next.
I believe that it is now up to the Minister to help Copley Marshall get out of this serious dilemma. What, therefore, I want to do is to urge the Government to treat this as a one-off consignment and to issue the appropriate import licence so that the cotton yarn can be processed in the normal way. The Minister can rest assured that the

company will never again import Egyptian cotton yarn in this manner. The mistake, to which the Department of Trade and Industry was a party, will, I can assure my hon. Friend, not he repeated.
I do not believe that it is good enough for my hon. Friend to say that the quota for Egyptian cotton has been exhausted for 1987, because the earlier consignments, despite the incorrect export licence, found their way to this country and caused no major problems. So I urge the Minister to make an exception for this one batch, which is now sitting in a bonded warehouse in Bradford, gathering dust. It is paid for and it is just sitting there, waiting to be used.
It is fair to say that this episode has cost Copley Marshall a great deal of money. Warehouse charges to date amount to £2,939, the loss of interest amounts to £857 —a total of nearly £4,000, which is irretrievably lost—and there is still £45,000 outstanding. Whitehall bureaucracy and red tape are hindering British industry when it is doing its best to lead the economic revival that Britain so badly needs.
The chairman of Copley Marshall wrote to me and said:
There is no hint of an apology in any of the ministry's letters admitting mistakes in the past. I am afraid that it is this sort of high handed attitude that makes one despair of doing business with government departments".
I find it difficult to disagree with him.
I ask my hon. Friend to review the position and grant a one-off import licence to ensure that this company can continue to make its contribution to economic regeneration in my constituency, and to show that the Whitehall machine can respond in a flexible way to specific problems as they arise. If my hon. Friend cannot say that he will grant a licence, I make a plea for him to say that he will not refuse one, but that he will reconsider the matter.
I regret that this saga has had to be aired in the Chamber, but, as the Minister knows, I wrote him three letters on the subject and tabled a parliamentary question, but received no joy. I desperately hope that this morning he will be able to give me a positive message that I can take to Copley Marshall on Friday afternoon when I report the results of today's debate.
I hope that I shall be able to report that this Conservative Government care about small firms such as Copley Marshall in deepest west Yorkshire, and that the Government are flexible and prepared to bend over backwards for small companies that are in trouble. I assure my hon. Friend that if he could give me that import licence to take with me on Friday he would become a hero in New Mill, while at the same time doing his best to further the cause of British enterprise.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on initiating this excellent Adjournment debate. I have a constituency interest because Mr. Donald Pedder of D. Pedder and Co. in Rochdale is a constituent, and it is he who has arranged these contracts with companies such as John L. Briery and Co. Ltd. and Copley Marshall and Co. Ltd. I have written to the Department on this issue.
The main thrust of my hon. Friend's speech was that Copley Marshall has been misguided by a mistake in the Department and by the Egyptians into thinking that the


arrangements that it has used for some time would continue, and that, against that mistake, it has continued to place business.
We all know that it is not easy, in this day and age, to run a company, with so many orders, and matters that we have to take account of, although in fairness we have simplified matters somewhat. Nevertheless, it is difficult to run a business these days.
In good faith, D. Pedder, my constituent, has placed contracts with the two companies that I mentioned, and, as a result, is in awful trouble; the company has paid for the goods, yet they are rotting in a warehouse. I should have thought, in these exceptional circumstances, that the Minister, if he has not come with the good news in his reply, could say that as it is in a dreadful position these goods could be released and worked on. In the future the company will have to realise that rules are rules.
I am the first person to want quotas on textiles imported into the United Kingdom to be upheld. We fought for that for many years, as did the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. We are not trying to break quotas. We are trying to rescue a company that has got itself sandwiched because of a mistake, perhaps partly of its own doing. However, it was issued with the inward processing stamp, which means that goods have to be re-exported outside the EEC.
Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister does not have a happy reply for us today, I wonder whether he would be prepared to go back to the Department and say, "I wonder whether in these exceptional circumstances we can get the company off the hook as long as it is understood that in future no more licences will be issued against that quota."

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for putting his case in such a straightforward and persuasive manner. I assure him that the disclaimer with which he started his speech relating to the scale of the company and the size of the problem was unnecessary. He put his case in a lucid and persuasive way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in his brief intervention. I congratulate both of my hon. Friends on putting their case so clearly.
Before I state my inclination on the matter, which I shall do at the conclusion of my set speech, I should first set out the reasons why imports into the United Kingdom of Egyptian cotton yarn are restricted and the rules governing the issue of import licences, which are needed before goods can enter the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said how important the issue of quotas is. As he knows, I take a great personal interest in that subject. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth attended the last debate we had on the multifibre arrangement, and I know that both my hon. Friends have intervened on the subject when it has come before the House.
My hon. Friends will know that there has been an agreement for several years between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning trade in textile products. Under the terms of that voluntary agreement, the Egyptian Government have given an undertaking to

restrain their exports of cotton yarn to the Community. They have also undertaken to limit their exports of cotton yarn to a certain level each year for each member state, including the United Kingdom.
The Egyptian authorities implement that undertaking themselves, by issuing export certificates in respect of exports of cotton yarn up to the agreed level in each member state. This system is known as "double control". Anyone wishing to import Egyptian cotton yarn into the EEC must apply to the relevant authorities for an import licence. The import licence will be issued only if the application is accompanied by a valid export certificate issued by the Egyptian authorities.
In addition, the agreement with the Egyptian Government contains special provisions for those shipments which are destined for re-export outside the EEC. Those shipments, which may be re-exported either in the same state or after processing, do not count against the annual restraint levels. The export certificate issued in those cases is the same as that for goods not destined for re-export, but an endorsement of the letters IP is put on the certificate. IP stands for inward processing.
It follows that an application for an import licence in respect of Egyptian cotton yarn which is not intended for re-export outside the EEC can be accepted only if the export certificate does not bear the IP stamp. In the case of the import licence application by Copley Marshall, which is the subject of this debate, the application was refused because the export certificate bore an IP stamp and the goods were not for re-export outside the EEC.
Those are the facts leading to the refusal of the licence application and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley would dispute what I have said so far. His argument is that, as the Department's import licensing branch had on two previous occasions failed to spot that export certificates bore IP stamps, there is some kind of obligation to make an exception in respect of the application in question.
It is, of course, regrettable that officials did not detect the earlier cases where incorrect documentation had been present. I regret it and make no excuses. All I can say is that about 180,000 import licence applications are handled each year, and even with the most rigorous system of checking, some cases will slip the net. In those cases, importers may, as happened in this case, benefit unjustifiably through receiving a licence to import goods which should not have been allowed into the country.
Of course every effort is made to avoid such mistakes, but I cannot believe that it is contended that we should allow earlier instances of faulty documentation slipping through the net to be accepted as justification for issuing a licence where inadequate documentation has been picked up. That would make a mockery of the import licensing system. It has always been the responsibility of importers to ensure that they are fully aware of the regulations and documentary requirements in respect of any transaction that they undertake.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend's constituents committed themselves to importing the cotton yarn before ensuring that their documentation was in order. I am sorry if they suffered financially as a result of the refusal. It is essential, however, when operating our import licensing controls, that we keep to our agreements, and that we are consistent in our treatment of importers. Privileged treatment for Copley Marshall would be very unfair to any


other importers where application has been refused because of incorrect documentation and who may have suffered loss or inconvenience putting matters right.
I very much regret, therefore, that I am unable to reverse the decision to refuse the application for an import licence. I can only repeat the advice which I have earlier given my hon. Friend, that if Copley Marshall is unable to obtain an export certificate without an IP stamp, it should seek a customer for the yarn outside the EEC, or a customer inside the EEC who is in a position to process the yarn and re-export it.
Having heard what my hon. Friend said about the company's efforts to find a customer for the yarn which is in bond and clearly a financial incubus upon it, I shall take one more look at the matter. I emphasise that I make such an undertaking without giving any commitment as to

the result. My hon. Friends have stated their case clearly. The Adjournment debate process is meaningless if both parties come to the House in set positions and the debate is simply an exchange between two deaf advocates. I shall reconsider the matter, bearing in mind the company's evident hardship. I must also take into account the possibility of my setting a precedent and the implications of that for others who have had a similar experience but disposed of the yarn having suffered some loss but who are back on the right track.
As I have said, I am giving no commitment as to the result, but I shall re-examine the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock am.